The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
isaacthemaniac
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:..."

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 103595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

"...jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. - Richard Dawkins
Though I really do not follow Richard Dawkins, here he's 100% correct.

Your job as Con in this debate is to prove that god is kind, caring and just.


https://www.youtube.com...;- Nightwish The Greatest Show on Earth

isaacthemaniac

Con

I am debating the notion of God in the old testament having mercy, kindness, justice , wisdom ( all good by extension )and is caring. The purpose is not to engage in unhealthy debate or evangelism but rather to show with insight that my points are valid and to win this debate. Despite my colleague adding the notion, all fiction, it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. I intend to use the parameters of the old testament as he has permitted whether fictional or not.
The definition of morality for man has always evolved with the times. I would not go as far as to make the distinction between the God of the Old Testament and the other testaments or of a different religion. This lack of consistency would negate my arguments .
One thing I should mention is that biblical scholars backed with historical evidence have shown the man in his injustice and arrogance has greatly tampered with the current version of the bible as we have it; hence we find various contradictions and mistakes and outright inaccuracies ( for instance Moses writing about his own death- also refer to who wrote the bible by Richard Elliott Friedman amongst other scholarly literature) by this self evident fact, it is very likely that the bible-old testament reflects a lot of the view points of people who changed and authored it as opposed to what God actually commanded, it is a futile exercise to copy and paste verses which we deem socially unacceptable today and use them as proof of God's un-deity like traits when there is a big question mark about their validity. One example I can think of is the curse of Ham, which appears in the old testament- it has been explained by many people as the "black skin_- this would entail the Negroes, Abyssinian , or Africans , however you would like to call people of dark skin ; if we go with this, it would imply that God created a race of people to be oppressed , an act of extreme injustice, however upon further review one can clearly see that this story was inserted by the Israelites to justify oppression and subjugation of the Canaanites with whom they were having a conflict , hence it is man who is cruel and unjust that he would go to such ends for political goals as to change a scripture he considers sacred. This can also be seen in modern times when countries spend billions of dollars on propaganda to discredit their enemies and ideologies contrary to that( think US movies against Soviet Union Communism etc)

Going with the merits of the old testament , the first act taken by God is the creation of Adam and by extension man. Adam was created and placed in the garden of Eden with his wife, so let us review this, Adam was none existent and lifeless , then God gave him life, the greatest of gifts, and I would argue the greatest act of mercy, he gave him the ability to be, to love, to smile , to laugh, have family, engage in intellectual discourse , to have free will and to choose. A few months ago I was watching a You tube channel for a man that was raising red ants, a colony or something , he made a statement that I found somewhat revealing about the nature of human beings, he said, " I provide for these ants everything ,I am the master so things must go how I want them to go", this was very revealing, as man is not capable of showing mercy or restraint when he has absolute power an example of this is the millions of people who have been victims of tyrants through time simply because they did not share the same race, ideology or social standing amongst other things. God in the old testament created out of his own will, a creature that he endured with insight, intelligence and emotions, he gave ,man freedom and placed him in a garden which symbolizes the fulfillment of every desire. Is this not an act of Love and friendship?
Human beings plan when they make things, for instance a car has certain safety features which serve a purpose, so by extension, it is obvious that God too would have a plan for man, hence he placed a test for Adam , for all the trees in Eden , he could eat from ,except one. The symbolism of this was to signal the purpose of man's creation, the spiritual dimension of his life ( the implied struggle between good and evil as evidenced to this very day) , his purpose ,and the manifestation of free will and the ability to differentiate right from wrong; he was given choice, something we exercise to this day, for instance I made the choice to respond to your debate, just as you made a choice to start the debate; the same way every man has a choice between forgiveness ,mercy and love or hate and murder. Adam had to choose between continuing in that bliss of Eden or the unknown of the tree that he had been forbidden, and by his choice came the consequences to him and his offspring since then, this is what we could term as sin. The disobedience of God results in sin, and that results in consequences.
Exemplified in our daily dealings when murderers are put in prison for their crimes, we imprison them as an act of justice , a natural consequence to sin against man, a highly spiritual motivation as justice is not an object but manifests in occurrences- this could not happen in a place of bliss like the garden of Eden.
For his part, Adam was expelled with his wife from a sanctified(Eden) place and placed upon the earth so he could redeem himself; this story has played out countless times , men who stand against injustice even if it costs them their lives, imagine the millions in both world wars, or individuals like Gandhi, Martin Luther king (last 100 years) and the likes; I contend that it is part of the redemption man must seek by shunning evil/sin and attempting to live an enlightened life. This goes to show that there is some planning in play here, if God was truly in need of man, Adam would certainly have not eaten from that tree, so the notion of God's jealousy is misunderstood as he would not have designed things in their current state if he had the impulse of jealousy.
The act of creation is the single greatest act of love in the universe, for one was lifeless and given life, and on top of that, he kept(keeps) his life even though he or she lives a life of disobedience. Man who never tolerate such insolence if he had the power ,but God does; forbearing and merciful .it is also in the old testament that we have laws/ guidelines like love your neighbor as you love yourself, is this an act of vindictiveness or care?
Another thing we should consider about God in the old testament is that , he made laws and gave man the choice to follow them, he did not impose these laws on man, but respected the free will have gave man. How can God be a control freak yet he does not force man to live by these laws? We have verses such as "The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he had made" (Ps. 145:9), or treatment of the poor "If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother" ( the list goes on) but all this goes to show God's compassion. More verses show compassion than what is contrary.
How can God be a bully when he gives people the choice to obey him or disobey? Does he bully them into denying his existence or into believing in him? How exactly does this work?
A deity has the right to institute laws as he wills( that's the point of being a deity ) even Kings of the past and leaders today do the same; as such ,going by the old testament, if he condemns homosexuality and sends a severe punishment on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, it does not mean that this is an act worthy of our condemnation or labels like homophobia, and it is not an excuse to reject his moral authority because it does not succumb to our desires; this is tantamount to rejecting the validity of a political authority and being in open revolt because he/she supports a moral position that you reject; I do not think we have sufficient ground for this claim as such claims will always come up, evolve and change with the times. This has been an ancient debate and God was perhaps called homophobic then as he is now by you, yet I do not see how that has a bearing on his attributes of caring and mercy as he created these people in the first place with knowledge of there actions.
A quick selective history: I am using examples to show the attitude of society from our forefathers ,the non biblical/ ot origins. Homosexuality is the defining issue of our time and a lot of information out there is clearly laced with opinion and could not stand up to scientific analysis, and obviously no opinion is tolerated except what society deems acceptable , another contradiction in modern concepts like free speech however; ( both sides are able to manipulate facts- one more so than the other, and man will always justify his actions even with outright deception and lies )
Hindus are prohibited from homosexual acts (Manusmrti 11:174)-" A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes"- key word unnatural OFFENSE
Buddhism-Vajrayana/Tibetan
View the purpose of sexual intercourse simply to reproduce, therefore for lay people, homosexual intercourse does not fulfil that purpose and is not necessary.
Dalai Lama -We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers,From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct."
homosexuality was criminally sanctioned under Soviet law

Will you claim that all Buddhism ( per Dalai Lama), Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Atheist states ( Soviet Union and frankly modern day China ) are all homophobic? and if you do, then you must recognize that only Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the Abrahamic faiths that subscribe to the old testament, so by your definition, man for the most part has been homophobic, why then is it God that we condemn ?
This societal resistance to homosexuality cannot be simply discounted as homophobia, it is a simplistic view of a very complex issue, what this shows is that non OT sources(including atheist states-soviet union) have writings and teachings that are considered morally superior by the adherents and homophobic by their foes.
Just because modern man's moral compass has changed, it does not give him the right to judge his forefathers ( who in many cases where morally superior) and by extension , the notion that being homophobic is a bad thing is ridiculous, as this is subjective not objective, and we could argue the merits of being homophobic or not but that is irrelevant. Say as an argument , in 1,000 years sex between people and children or animals is legal , sanctioned and protected by the law, people at that time would consider us backward and "aniphobic" or "pedophobic" (coining new terms) and would consider scripture that condemns that act the same and by extension God, so this notion of homophobia as it relates to God is both subjective and irrelevant as dislike for something God warrants comes down to a matter of faith not societal approval. And as with all things, the current view will change, what will happen when/if it becomes outlawed again , shall we then forget our prior condemnation?
The verses concerning infanticide if anything seem to me as reflections of the social contract at the time, if we take the old testament as the literal speech of God, then we would have to deny historical proofs of changing this word. But, I do contend that different times required different methods; in trying to paint his picture using something unique to modern man, would it not be ridiculous if God revealed shun all satellite related technology in the modern age , would not the people of the past have found it hard to fathom what that meant ( just as we find it hard to understand the laws that applied to them and condemn them?) , as such, it is possible that the social contract at the time found many old testament actions appropriate and wholly acceptable ( for what may be accurate) and it more likely that it was not changed as the people where pleased with it. If hypothetically speaking God had accepted homosexual activity then, it is likely that the people would have naturally rebelled , just as modern man is rebelling considering himself superior to ancient man .The same old testament says do not commit murder, so why would God say do not commit murder( includes men) and yet condone murdering children...odd. it is possible that ancient man was extremely brutal ( as seen with many mass graves continuously discovered of wars, human sacrifice and barbaric actions recorded)
Richard Dawkins , the author of the selfish gene has been known to be both disingenuous , hypocritical and to tell lies obviously besides his other positive traits. Going by his book, the selfish gene would say anything however false or deceptive to further its interests hence "...jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. -"
Since you diligently quote and agree with him, I find it difficult to understand how being sadomasochistic relates to God, it would imply that God is human at least emotion wise, another long stretch: sadomasochistic- characterized by or deriving sexual gratification from both sadism and masochism. So does he procreate? and have dinner and sleep too? I am not sure where this can be found explicitly in the old testament or in the proper context , it seems more like an opinion or an attempt at expressing enmity towards God not based on scientific study of actual old testament proof, so how can I respond to biases? but his colleagues can (https://carm.org...)
Conclusion-"After carefully examining the chief Old Testament examples that atheists use to label God as unjust, it has been demonstrated that their criticisms and characterizations are unfounded, and their understanding of the various situations flawed. Further, rather than living up to Dawkin"s caricature of being a vindictive, impatient, quick-tempered, and bloodthirsty deity, the image of God that instead emerges from the Old Testament after a thorough study is just the opposite; God is portrayed as forgiving, patient, and slow to bring forth judgment. However, He is also revealed to be a holy, just, and righteous God who will bring justice about in His time."
God is caring and just, he is also knowing of what is best, this does not always mean that man will understand clearly; that is why people who subscribe to these beliefs must couple it with faith: His kindness and care is such that he has provided a blueprint for man to follow, with advice that is suited for the humble(promise of paradise) and the stubborn(threat of punishment) . God did not institute slavery or killing people with nuclear weapons, nor murdering millions in the name of ideology, all this would contradict the old testament premise of love your neighbor (where agnostic, believer, disbeliever ) as you love yourself, it is man who acts with unbridled brutality , even scripture is not enough to restrain him . It is man who to both himself and fellow man is unjust, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. All these attributes an be found in man, would not such a creature need advice consistently?
Man has the audacity to inflict torture and brutal evil on others yet condemn God when he punishes him as an act of justice through a flood or a quake. It is man who would kill millions in the name of racial cleansing ( Nazis) and yet find fault with God.
Such is the contradiction in man's criticisms of God, he defines love, care and mercy and kindness as he sees fit and only subject to himself even if it be at the expense even of his own mother, it is man who is a lair and the ultimate master of oppression and injustice, if this was not the case, why did Mao Zedong kill millions? or Hitler or Stalin and Lenin? these men all did not follow old testament teachings ( not to say that adherents have not done the same, see crusades) , and yet saw there fellow man as cattle , why did the Japanese invade China unjustly? Man is the true beast here, the beast by choice not by creation, he claims for himself purity and self righteousness unjustly. The old testament is simply a code of laws that those of faith are asked to follow, a choice really. A code sent by one who cares for him despite his vile actions, an act of mercy in that had we loved our neighbors as we loved ourselves we would not have inflicted the evil we inflict on them. What testament then has man brought?
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Well well well well well hmmmmmm considering the absolute fact that you cannot prove that YOUR god even exists, YOUR entire debate is entirely irrelevant on those grounds alone, you’ve automatically lost the debate. Oh and Btw, I didn’t make the opening statement for RD1. Richard Dawkins did. He happens to know a lot more about YOUR god, religion and bible than you ---ever--- will. As the matter of fact, so do I. Now let’s see where your debate leads. So let’s get started.

Right off the bat you dig yourself a super hole “mercy, kindness, justice , wisdom” How is that possible with deliberate massive genocides such as… Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan combined? Here's some examples... 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!! 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? There’s no such a thing as “mercy, kindness, justice” and godwho has no morality.
“Wisdom”? What? No god would ever create the human race to begin with, with all of his faults, his broken bones, his heart attacks, his diseases.
Also what “wisdom” is there within any god that would ---ever--- use text form as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible?
“If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty

“We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty

Of course there’s plenty of other things that god gives unto man with his great divine wisdom such as cancer, Hitler, Mao, smallpox, Stalin, all rapists, his anger, his rage, his fury, his evil, his jealousy. Jealousy? Oh that’s wisdom - right? In which no supreme deity would ever, want, need or desire.

“hence we find various contradictions and mistakes and outright inaccuracies...” Well duh. So how do you or anyone know how to properly interpret ANYTHING or even know that this god of YOURS exists by YOUR rules? And to help you out…
http://www.newsweek.com... Newsweek THE BIBLE: SO MISUNDERSTOOD IT'S A SIN

“Going with the merits of the old testament…” There are no merits of the OT. How do you identify fact from fiction? You can’t. So let’s not review creation nor Adam.


But you did mention free will. Sorry. If you believe in god, then you have no free will, none. You show me anywhere in your bible where it says something to the effect of “I the lard thy god grants man free will.” In fact it doesn’t exist anywhere. There’s nothing like it anywhere in YOUR bible through any of its misinterpretations. There’s tons of stuff in which I can easily prove that you have no Free Will IF you believe in god. But that is entirely another subject.
Well that’s a stupid idea to have a test for Adam. much less anyone else. Adam and Eve. What a joke. Adam and Eve were warned only once in the bible and they were essentially children and not thinking adults. So they were incapable of making rational choices. Its like you playing with real guns for the first time as a child. You need to be warned again and again and again and again and again and again time after time to not play with them. Not once. Once will never cut it to their minds, nor to a child’s mind. Even worse is why should I or anyone pay the price for something that happened 6,000 years ago or so? How pathetic. And god knew that Adam and Eve would cause conflict to begin with. Yep. god loves to watch the human race fail. And he knew that they would fail to begin with. god also had to have known that man would fail as well............ that of course is if god is all knowing and all powerful, knows everything and is omnipotent. Yep. And man continues to fail because of YOUR god................................ just how he likes and wants it simply because man believes in this GOD of YOURS.

“the implied struggle between good and evil as evidenced to this very day” Well YOUR god created evil because he’s evil. After all he freely admitted it far too many times in YOUR bible for him to NOT be evil. Strange isn’t it that in comparison that the Inca, many of the native American Indian tribes until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out, the aborigines, Hindu’s, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists etc etc etc they do not practice nor preach nor go to war over their religions, not anywhere close to the evils nor hate that the christians do. Now why is that? And yet according to your god worshiping other gods is considered to be the most evil thing there is and you should be stoned to death for it. So you follow your lord’s orders and you come on down here and stone me to death. Whatsamatter? You are not going to follow your god’s orders? Why? Why not?

And there you go into the free will thingy again. If god were god, he could easily take the evil out of free will. But no. Your god in being pure 100% evil, he leaves evil in free will such as the raping of a 6 year old girl by daddy while he punches her in the face for 13 years sometimes twice per week. The worst thing about it is this god of YOURS gives more value to daddy than to the little girl as she has no free will whatsoever to escape and SCREAM as loud as she can. Oh indeed as you stated “his purpose ,and the manifestation”. You got that one right. But then again there is no free will IF you believe in your god who you cannot even prove exists.

Then you get into sin. I shall shut that one down right now because it does not exist in your bible as its a wall of hypocritical contradictory (1 of a good thousand or so making your bible truly unreadable) confusion. Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)
Wow are you obsessed with this Adam and Eve garden of eden nonsense. Well gee there are many stories in the bible that were plagiarized. Oh let’s start off with the great flood shall we? Sheesh. Adam and Eve.

“The act of creation is the single greatest act of love in the universe,” Yet you cannot even prove it happened. So I will flatly ignore that paragraph. If you want to talk about something, then you need to come up with some actual evidence. You cannot come in here and say “this is this” and expect me or anyone to swallow it. K?

“Another thing we should consider about God in the old testament is that , he made laws and gave man the choice to follow them,” Oh no he most certainly did not!!!! Threatening people with death is NOT giving people a choice. Deuteronomy 13 speaks very highly of that. Especially 9-10. “But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” So once again come on down here and stone me to death because I 100% KNOW differently for your sad pathetic frail god. Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 states the same thing. AND 4 of the 10 commandments also threaten people with death if broken. Again threatening people with death is NOT giving people a choice.

I'm out of space.
isaacthemaniac

Con

Well well well well well hmmmmmm considering the absolute fact that you cannot prove that YOUR god even exists, YOUR entire debate is entirely irrelevant on those grounds alone, you"ve automatically lost the debate. Oh and Btw, I didn"t make the opening statement for RD1. Richard Dawkins did. He happens to know a lot more about YOUR god, religion and bible than you ---ever--- will. As the matter of fact, so do I. Now let"s see where your debate leads. So let"s get started. -
This is not a debate about whether God exists or not, there is no need to make this discussion personal, how can I loose a debate that is about if God has mercy or not in the old testament because you claim that he does not exist?
Remember, I am only here to debate and hopefully win, it does not matter to me what your views on God are, Also you should consider the absolute fact that you cannot prove that God does not exist and the claim that everything happened by chance is less believable than saying that a snake is able to drive. Please let us stick to the original debate, my belief in God is irrelevant to this discussion, thank you and I appreciate your candor . How can you say that Richard Dawkins a master in his field and authored the selfish gene theory (In the current issue of Advances in Complex Systems (February-April), Dr. Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute and an expert on the application of mathematical analysis to complex systems, contends that the selfish-gene theory of evolution is fatally flawed.)knows more about the bible( yet his theory fails) than I ever will , when you do not know me or him personally(as he only knows what he needs to disparage the faith) , or is it that you know what will happen to us in the future since you said ever will ? shall we substitute fact for guesswork, or do you take offense that your hero may not be all knowing? Either way, this is irrelevant and highly antagonistic.

Right off the bat you dig yourself a super hole "mercy, kindness, justice , wisdom" How is that possible with deliberate massive genocides such as" Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan combined? Here's some examples... 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!! 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? There"s no such a thing as "mercy, kindness, justice" and godwho has no morality.

It is very odd that you ignored the point I made about authenticity of some of these verses, none the less Let us define mercy: compassion or forbearance (see forbearance 1) shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment begged for mercy , Kindness: the quality or state of being kind(arising from or characterized by sympathy or forbearance ) , justice the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments and wisdom ability to discern inner qualities and relationships.
For these qualities to come together in one being would obviously be difficult for another being to fathom who does not possess them. You are unable to see the wisdom in what is around you simply because you lack wisdom and such it is reflected in the things that you do, this would also entail unnecessary hostility.
Of all the verses you pointed out, which verse is there in which God came to earth and perpetuated violence?

You said 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!! , this was a war between the Israelites and Judah, if you read further it states, "The Israelites were subdued on that occasion, and the people of Judah were victorious because they relied on the LORD, the God of their ancestors." you were not there. neither was I, but clearly the party who trusted in God was given victory over those who did not( by this analogy I can say Man lacks mercy because of the millions killed in war since the dawn of time, however some wars are righteous like fighting Hitler, so why is it unacceptable for you if God granted victory to one group of people who trusted him over those who did not- we cannot condemn the entire mankind because of war as there is always a just side, so why do you condemn God?)
No God is not like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hong Xiuquan , the atheists(some perhaps) of this list where tyrants who if they had the opportunity would have shed the blood of all men on earth for their own desires( cleansing the world and subjugating the racially impure!), and mind you , history is filled with such barbarians, including Vlad the Impaler, whose brutality no religious scripture can justify, was it God who made him do this ? Clearly not, if you are truthful.
It is possible that billions of men have lived upon the earth, the numbers you exaggerate with are a minority.
3,000 EX 32:27-28: These men were killed for treason when (Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies.26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.) those who worshipped the calf knowing it was false and refused to rally to Moses, it was an act of justice, the united states punishment for treason is" Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death". If the punishment of treason for man is death, why do we hold God to a different standard when it comes to treason?
14,700 NU 16:49, 26 And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins- it is evident and clear that this was a punishment for sin(you of course do not know the nature of their sins, but keep it in mind that they lived a lifetime before punishment became inevitable)-Please refer to the definition of justice, so what would the case be if each of these men had a heart ?
NU 25: 1-11
While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the LORD"s anger burned against them- The cause of their punishment is clearly detailed, it was sexual immorality coupled with the breaking of the first commandment- it was not arbitrary like Hitler killing Jews.
JOS 8: 1-25
"The first, in Joshua 7, fails. The Biblical account portrays the failure as being due to a prior sin of Achan, for which he is stoned to death by the Israelites. On the second attempt, in Joshua 8, Joshua, who is identified by the narrative as the leader of the Israelites, receives instruction from God. God tells them to set up an ambush and Joshua does what God says. An ambush is arranged at the rear of the city on the western side. Joshua is with a group of soldiers that approach the city from the front so the men of Ai, thinking they will have another easy victory, chase Joshua and the fighting men from the entrance of the city to lead the men of Ai away from the city. Then the fighting men to the rear enter the city and set it on fire. When the city is captured, 12,000 men and women are killed, and it is razed to the ground. The king is captured and put on a stake until he is dead. His body is then placed at the city gates and stones are placed on top of his body. The Israelites then burn Ai completely and "made it a permanent heap of ruins."[2] God told them they could take the livestock as plunder and they did so- "
This is simply war, look at what is happening in Afghanistan today, both sides believe they are fighting for a noble cause, if God was to give his help to one group who obeyed his commands, would that mean that God does not have mercy? obviously those who obeyed him where more worthy of his help, if he had not helped them, their enemies would have conquered them, so what is your point?
it does not seem like you actually took the time to read these verses but simply copied and pasted to support your narrative. During World War 1 and 2 close to approximately 78 million people were killed, the old testaments chronicles the journey of the children of Israel, so it does not account for the other murders and injustices that took place in the world at the hand of man. it is fair to assume that without divine intervention, the children of Israel would have survived at unacceptable costs to human life; How can we say God has no morality (again subjective) when his intervention is with a just and detailed cause; he did not kill 78 million people in the world wars, nor the terror we have today, this was man's own doing, sometimes man understands the language of mutual violence, if this was not the case, Hitler would have been talked out of power, so should God simply use scripture knowing full well that man will discard it? We have to draw a distinction between ideal pacifism and reality ; just because our demands of how God should be are not met, does not mean that he contradicts mercy and justice. it is possible that all this was good and prevented a greater evil , but how can you know when you lack objectivity ? it is tantamount to explaining to a baby(impossible) why he should feel the pain of having a vaccine, the baby lacks understanding and would cry in pain and agony but the mother in all her mercy still allows the vaccine to be administered for the greater good. Should we then say that the mother lacks kindness and mercy towards her child? of course not. but that is because we have wisdom and understand, and a baby does not.

"Wisdom"? What? No god would ever create the human race to begin with, with all of his faults, his broken bones, his heart attacks, his diseases.
Am i supposed to justify the creation of man to you because you hold such a dark and material view? this is all your opinion, a pessimistic view on life because to you ,we are here by chance and life has no meaning. the fact that man knows he has faults, broken bones , heart attacks and diseases is not what gives man value, it is his endurance, sacrifice, struggle and ability to overcome challenges . Man also learns, he cares, he stands up for justice, he lives and he dies. Man fights for the weak and oppressed against fellow man, he helps the needy and the poor, he improves his life and of those around him, if he chooses to, all this by choice and all this happens with man knowing that he is mortal and he has to die, yet he tries his best to make good of a bad situation. Man is creative, scientific and vastly complex, he works , he procreates, he makes all forms of entertainment, he has a spiritual side and his own opinions. Why would we not want to be created to begin with, if what you say is true, you would have chosen to end your life, but you know it is not and you are still here. Man's faults are a counterbalance to his unmatched mind and intellect, if man was free of faults, then he would by his own right claim to be more than just a man.

Also what "wisdom" is there within any god that would ---ever--- use text form as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible?
in respoinse to this claim,
what is the wisdom in using text? I am glad that you asked that. The tablets that were given to Moses would not have been corrupted as easily as oral tradition. why do we have tons of literature about the law to pass on to future generations in text? it is clearly the best way to preserve something unless and until it is corrupted by man, but even after this corruption, it is a better way to safe guard knowledge. Would you have preferred that the bible was passed on verbally? without the text form you would have more cause to deny it and claim that it changed over time. Also people would have been able to change the bible more than they already have, as the social condition of man changed but the scripture was a constant. what is the wisdom besides this?

"If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well." Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it." Matt Dillahunty

First of all, this has nothing to do with the debate at hand, the debate was about if God of the old testament has mercy or not, how can i be asked to debate about your issues with the idea of God's knowledge and how he does things? but none the less, God knew all things and wrote them down, amongst the qualities of God is that he is forbearing, He gave people will and the ability to choose the right path or the wrong path-the greatest proof of this is a consciousness , no one can explain what it is( we have utter speculation and frankly scientific gibberish) , but we all know when we do wrong how we feel. He wrote down all that with knowledge, just as he wrote down that many good people would come to the world and would live good lives. All these quotes you sue are meaningless and irrelevant to our discussion, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Jews were guilty of knowingly changing the Torah and so where the Christians, if you reject this ,it is not based on scientific analysis but whims and desires. Having said that, How can you ask me what is wrong with God coming down and talking to people, Is it my job to demand or know such a thing? and if people can find faith and believe in God , should he come down just for your sake? that is ridiculous . How can a people who are genocidal , deny God and are cruel demand that God comes down to talk to them? If God was to come down to talk to man, it would negate the need for faith ,belief or scripture . Also whether you say god or God, is pointless but it does show that you are not really debating in good spirit.

"We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there"s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for Christianity. The god that Christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?" Matt Dillahunty

(Mind you I am not a Christian ) People do not believe In God because of a text, some people do, some believe in God because of the experiences in their lives, others it is a natural sensation, they submit , others it is based on scientific observations, the interconnected universe with all its diversity , size , species and mathematical precision cannot be mere chance lest it would be replicated. So the notion that text is the primary form of belief is flawed, the bible offers to those who believe in God, a way to know his will i.e the ten commandments and at the other end of the spectrum are people who deny God for the same reasons. Why do you take the time and expend effort to mock those who believe in God when it is not your business and you are not their guardians; Similar to the plots 0f the Soviet Union.

Of course there"s plenty of other things that god gives unto man with his great divine wisdom such as cancer, Hitler, Mao, smallpox, Stalin, all rapists, his anger, his rage, his fury, his evil, his jealousy. Jealousy? Oh that"s wisdom - right? In which no supreme deity would ever, want, need or desire.

So everything bad is from God and everything good is from man? How does that work ? Did God force Hitler, Mao the atheist to do what they did? Cancer is bad for the one who believes that nothing comes after death what he forgets that even f he did not have cancer, he would die of old age or violence , it is just a method of death. Did God force man to use chemicals that would cause cancer? H gave him knowledge and how man chooses to use it is up to man, if God directly intervened then man would have no ability to act independently, and it is this independence that have made him feel self sufficient , arrogant and unjust.

"hence we find various contradictions and mistakes and outright inaccuracies..." Well duh. So how do you or anyone know how to properly interpret ANYTHING or even know that this god of YOURS exists by YOUR rules? And to help you out"
http://www.newsweek.com...... Newsweek THE BIBLE: SO MISUNDERSTOOD IT'S A SIN

By using intellect ,historical sources and clear consensus ,that's how. Here is an example in play, the steady-state theory, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place. (probably believed by thousands of people at some point) Problems with the steady-state theory began to emerge in the 1950s and 60s, when observations began to support the idea that the universe was in fact changing: bright radio sources (quasars and radio galaxies) were found only at large distances (therefore could have existed only in the distant past), not in closer galaxies. and it is dismissed today.
The same critical study is applicable to religious literature, using intellect(observation), historical sources( any other recorded data at that period in time) and consensus( other scientists agree to dismiss this make believe) , so can be done for the bible to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Going with the merits of the old testament"" There are no merits of the OT. How do you identify fact from fiction? You can"t.
- Neither can you prove that it is fiction or entirely false. This statement was meant to stress that I would primarily be using the old testament to make my points (as you defined God in the old testament) it without going into the new testament. the merits only pertain to source not validity,

But you did mention free will. Sorry. If you believe in god, then you have no free will, none. You show me anywhere in your bible where it says something to the effect of "I the lard thy god grants man free will."
Well the fact that one person believes in God and the other does not is evidence of choice and hence free will , it is a logical deduction, if we all believed in God or we all denied his existence then we would have no free will as it pertains to choice, again my beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion, for all you know I am here only for the art of debating and i would have debated you if you we were taking opposite positions . How can I use the bible to show this when you clearly consider it as fiction, hence you would say it is fiction. your misunderstanding is based in ignorance, you assume that the belief in God is not genuine because you lack it ,which seems as though you want to impose your will upon me using any tactic possible including outright insensitivity, the free will is your ability to mock God or anyone who believes in him, because that is how you choose to exercise it. By using logical deduction, we can see that when you are given everything but told to stay away from one thing, it would imply that you have a choice in the matter to stay way or not.

Well that"s a stupid idea to have a test for Adam. much less anyone else. Adam and Eve. What a joke. Adam and Eve were warned only once in the bible and they were essentially children and not thinking adults. So they were incapable of making rational choices. Its like you playing with real guns for the first time as a child. You need to be warned again and again and again and again and again and again time after time to not play with them. Not once. Once will never cut it to their minds, nor to a child"s mind. Even worse is why should I or anyone pay the price for something that happened 6,000 years ago or so? How pathetic. And god knew that Adam and Eve would cause conflict to begin with. Yep. god loves to watch the human race fail. And he knew that they would fail to begin with. god also had to have known that man would fail as well............ that of course is if god is all knowing and all powerful, knows everything and is omnipotent. Yep. And man continues to fail because of YOUR god................................ just how he likes and wants it simply because man believes in this GOD of YOURS.

I do not claim ownership of God or the belief in God, so I say God not my God , if you want me to say god or my god, I will say that, it really has no bearing on me, but if it helps you win the debate or channel your rage, then it is okay, if wanted to clarify, it cannot frustrate me . Why is it stupid for a test? essentially children? that is a leap of faith; where is your proof of this, from what we can gather they were fully mature adults capable of independent reasoning and at that time , the concept of children was no existent. I do not know whether this is a rant or an argument; Mind you adults also shoot themselves with guns after a lifetime of warning about them. So your premise is that Adam was a child and should have been warned multiple times, would that have changed the outcome? Does Adam's eating from the tree mean that humankind failed? that definition of failure is only in an extreme irrational material sense , one that is incapable of seeing beyond that.
By extension, This test replies each day someone does what they are forbidden to do, that is there tree, the tree of desire, so you find people cheating on their wives, killing and murdering for money, fame and wealth, how can you understand this as stupid because you cannot permit a definition of mercy besides how you see fit?

"the implied struggle between good and evil as evidenced to this very day" Well YOUR god created evil because he"s evil. After all he freely admitted it far too many times in YOUR bible for him to NOT be evil. Strange isn"t it that in comparison that the Inca, many of the native American Indian tribes until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out, the aborigines, Hindu"s, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists etc etc etc they do not practice nor preach nor go to war over their religions, not anywhere close to the evils nor hate that the christians do. Now why is that? And yet according to your god worshiping other gods is considered to be the most evil thing there is and you should be stoned to death for it. So you follow your lord"s orders and you come on down here and stone me to death. Whatsamatter? You are not going to follow your god"s orders? Why? Why not?

My God created evil because he is evil? is this a fact? You deny God exists and yet you acknowledge that he created evil , (who created good and why do you see only negative? on top of that God said do good and shun evil as evidenced by the ten commandments , why is it his fault when you choose evil) , but if he created evil, what proof do you have of this? When God created a human as a baby, do you see babies having evil in their hearts? this is something that is learned and it is not part of human nature , a choice that's why some people steal because they are poor and others do not steal even if they are poor. Sometimes Parents have to discipline their children , should the children say that the parents are the incarnation of evil because they have been punished ? Did God come down and manifest evil ?and the Inca(Many of these people practiced human sacrifices - are those people you are praising?) well the Caucasian people who were guilty of using religion for their own means cannot be equated to genuine Christianity in which Jesus said turn the other cheek. This is self evident. The hypocrisy of man cannot be blamed on God , what about the people who practice what they preach? Idol worship is treason( from the old testament view point) , as it is a clear lie by those standards and if the penalty for it is as you describe , are you advocating for me to come and impose death on a stranger I met on debate.org? One who may not have knowledge, also God did not impose this responsibility on all those who believe in him, what he imposed on them is among other things mainly the ten commandments. Whatever is imposed on the authorities is not imposed on him, we can debate the merits of that command .

And there you go into the free will thingy again. If god were god, he could easily take the evil out of free will. But no. Your god in being pure 100% evil, he leaves evil in free will such as the raping of a 6 year old girl by daddy while he punches her in the face for 13 years sometimes twice per week. The worst thing about it is this god of YOURS gives more value to daddy than to the little girl as she has no free will whatsoever to escape and SCREAM as loud as she can. Oh indeed as you stated "his purpose ,and the manifestation". You got that one right. But then again there is no free will IF you believe in your god who you cannot even prove exists.

God has promised a day of reckoning ,{ Amos 5:18 Woe to those who wish for the day of the Lord! Why do you want the Lord"s day of judgment to come? It will bring darkness, not light.} a day on which the scales will be balanced , When those who did evil are repaid and those who did good are rewarded .....When did God command the raping and killing of a 6 year old? Where is this in the old testament as a command? This dad did it by choice , why is it God's fault that such a man imposes such evil? How did he give more value to the father who is exercising evil on his daughter? How exactly is that God's fault? One day he will grant her and her father and will give her justice, that is the promise laid bare in scripture and the reason for faith, what about this man, why do you not lay blame on him like you have on the racist pig Christians(really, is this necessary?) or does this man get a pass because he does not believe in God? And if God does not exist as you claim, then man is solely the cause of all evil

Then you get into sin. I shall shut that one down right now because it does not exist in your bible as its a wall of hypocritical contradictory (1 of a good thousand or so making your bible truly unreadable) confusion. Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)
Wow are you obsessed with this Adam and Eve garden of eden nonsense. Well gee there are many stories in the bible that were plagiarized. Oh let"s start off with the great flood shall we? Sheesh. Adam and Eve.
Is this how you intend to win this debate? You can refer to my arguments as nonsense but do not dismiss them as such, how can you say" Wow you are obsessed" I am only trying to make a point, you can dispute me on the facts or the flaws in my logic , "sheesh "(really) why don't you be original and show me the flaw of my reasoning? Why are you sing the new testament book of John? What does that have to do with God's mercy in the old testament? What does Jesus have to do with the original premise of the debate (something I clarified in the beginning and you immediately mocked me) ? According to the old testament, sin is well defined in the old testament for example , You should tell him that I am about to judge his house forever because of the sin that he knew about. For his sons were cursing God, and he did not rebuke them (Samuel 3:13)

"The act of creation is the single greatest act of love in the universe," Yet you cannot even prove it happened. So I will flatly ignore that paragraph. If you want to talk about something, then you need to come up with some actual evidence. You cannot come in here and say "this is this" and expect me or anyone to swallow it. K?

Umm, I did by explaining the merits of having life and the benefits of being human , why don't you challenge those merits, Please refer to prior entry.

"Another thing we should consider about God in the old testament is that , he made laws and gave man the choice to follow them,"Oh no he most certainly did not!!!! Threatening people with death is NOT giving people a choice. Deuteronomy 13 speaks very highly of that. Especially 9-10. "But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." So once again come on down here and stone me to death because I 100% KNOW differently for your sad pathetic frail god. Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 states the same thing. AND 4 of the 10 commandments also threaten people with death if broken. Again threatening people with death is NOT giving people a choice.

If I was threatened with death for something I do not want to do, I would never do it. rest assured, that Jefferson said , " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," Jefferson " Did he not just threaten us with death if we opposed liberty? Why do you selectively respond to my arguments? Having choice entails an explanation of the consequences, the same way in our society a murderer ends up in prison, he would not say if only I was not aware of the consequences, I would have free will, our society operates solely on threats, that's why we have the police and justice system , it is human nature.
It feels to me that this debate is very personal and you seem to be doing more soul searching than debating, I admire your candor but I would prefer an actual point and counter point not rants, quotes, insults. I apologize if you were offended when I called out prophet richard dawkins, I do not worship him and neither do I take his opinions as absolutes , I believe in rational
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Well I have 0% of an idea as to how you get over 10,000 characters for your debate and you get probably about 30,000. So for point blank reasons, there’s 0% of a way to my knowledge at this point that will be able to answer all of your ideals, not even close, nor will I and this debate will have to be cut extremely short, just as R2 was though it didn’t dawn on me at the time that it was.
OK off the subject, YOU made the statement that what I stated was irrelevant when YOUR entire conversation was irrelevant because YOU cannot prove YOUR god exists. And if you want to continue down that path, then that’s fine with me.

Now I ultimately proved unto you that YOUR god who in which in no way exists and you cannot prove he does, as the headline states in RD2 is “ is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction” and you cannot point blank argue with it IF you have an intelligence that is higher than that of a cabbage batbrain. That’s not hard to figure out… that is of course if only you read your bible.

But then again no god would even communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible.

Sure you are here to debate and hopefully win. Wow do you sound like D. Trump. I can’t even say that thing’s name. Did you watch his speech tonight? All that maggot is concerned with is winning. And he will squash anyone and anybody to make sure he wins. How many times did he use the word “win”? There’s about 20 or so things that he and YOUR god has in common. Truly egotistically scary. Oh and btw, I’m not here to win. I’m here to see what is just and right. BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE. In absolutely no way is YOUR god just and right.
You are right. This is not a debate as to whether god exists or not. Then you should have not stated that what I state is irrelevant when everything you state is on that merit alone.
Well you bring up evolution in which this debate is NOT about even though evolution is absolute 100% proven fact. AND your god can be proven false in every single language. No exceptions. None.

Here’s some Richard Dawkins quotes that ties in nicely to the theme here:
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”

"There are many very educated people who are religious, but they're not creationists."

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Now if it doesn’t matter to you what my views on god are, then why even bother having this debate? Of course you are interested.


Then you falter miserably when you state that I cannot prove that god doesn’t exist. Um no. its up to you to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None. Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves. There’s absolutely no evidence for god. None. There’s no tests that can prove god. There’s no demonstrations to prove god. None. So how do you even know god exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of having his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us and the bible which is in TEXT form, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none, so this bible would be and is a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything. If god is god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. That’s evidence in which there is none to be proved. So until this so called god presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a forgery. Also if you have the slightest whimsical doubts within your beliefs in this god in which you cannot prove exists, then you are an atheist.


Then you bring up genocide in which I proved was NOT wisdom but in fact bankrupt corruption on god’s side. So you must think that murdering and killing innocent children, babies still suckling on the mother’s nipples, pregnant mothers, them being murdered by YOUR god is perfectly OK. Well that makes you with all the supposed “wisdom” of YOUR god just as sick, mentally deranged, gone, diseased, coughed upped, and fraudulent who has no morality just like YOUR god. Um no you cannot define any kind of “mercy”, “compassion” or “forbearance” when this s--t happenes. None. YOU and your god has 0 defense for this especially when YOUR god is god who could have easily brought in an era of peace. But nah. He chose an era of destruction, hate, desolation, despair, war, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury etc etc etc. And for you to make any attempt to try and justify it, well wow, just how evil and just how much hate is within you?
“You said 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!! , this was a war between the Israelites and Judah, if you read further it states, “ WHO CARES WHAT IT STATES??? YOUR GOD BUTCHERED 500,000 of his chosen people for no reason at all when he could have brought in an era of peace you TOTAL FRICKEN IMBECILE!!!!!!!!! What is wrong with you that defends the mass murder of anyone for any reason? Oh I get it, your scripture says so. So therefore you “literally” buy it.
You are correct “No God is not like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hong Xiuquan” He’s far worse, he’s all of them combined. After all he created them in his own image. You want scripture? Now you know that verse. Here’s another…
Isaiah 43:7 “Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.”

Then you get into the verses that I pointed out to you by the numbers. I’m well aware of what they say.
OK I’m ending this. You want to justify the sheepish slaughtering of men, women, babies, children, animals (especially animals) for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL because if this god of yours is a god, in which he clearly isn’t, he could have easily avoided all of these horrific genocides that were brought upon BY HIMSELF when this so-called god could have foreseen and manipulated the path of peace, love, kindness, care, compassion, wisdom, forbearance, etc etc etc. But nah he chose and manipulated the route of hate, war, needless death, violence, bloodshed, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, EVIL etc etc etc.


Summary
Since you think and believe that god was just with all of his hate and evil to wage his genocides, and since you cannot even prove that this god of YOURS even exists, you are just as evil and you bring as much hate as proved, as he does. You don’t want peace or love or care for each other. Neither does your so-called manipulative god. If he did, he be out of a job because there’d be nothing for this god of YOURS to do. He’d be more bored than chopping wood at a nun’s luncheon to promote baloney which is exactly what you are and do. And in the end, what good does all this hate and violence and evil promote except for more hate and violence and evil? Indeed, really, the OT SHOULD be taught to children alike? Ha ha with the gritty grin on your face.
isaacthemaniac

Con

I am disappointed by the lack of intellectual challenge in your response; This is utter garbage, even a high school kid could garner a more substantiated response, you do not want to read nor research and think very highly of yourself, mistakenly obviously based on your writings; , how can this theory, it be a proven fact when amongst many things not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found , it is called the theory of evolution for a reason, it is a theory , again this is irrelevant
I will ignore your Donald Trump comments as they are irrelevant to this debate, also kidichard dawkins as by all accounts, is a prophet of the religion of atheism, its chief minister and missionary as such it is pointless for me to respond to your "celebrity" quotes that are irrelevant to the debate. I also see your responses seem more like mumblings, so I will continue with building my case.
Since you claim that I got more characters in , I will make this brief, so as to be fair.

I find your arguments to be a mask of bigotry and intolerance, you offer nothing of actual substance but you continually parrot the same claims of genocide and what not, you then to proceed to ignorantly claim that the theory of evolution, upon which Darwin famously said, " The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." , so to have you parrot your propaganda here is immature.

I do not want to debate the merits of your claims, as they are not fact and it is not the original debate. Why is it up to me to prove that God exists, what does that matter to me , I am only here to debate the premise you proposed, if he did not exist, then why did you propose this debate and even if you did it as a hypothetical exercise, what do I have to prove to you? I simply do not care, we are debating mercy and the good qualities of God in the old testament, not your infatuation with richad dokins

It is foolish for you to tell me that I am the descendant of a theoretical ape or here by chance or magic and then expect me to believe you and have me to prove otherwise, will I really buy into this fantasy because you demand it?. I see you are a needlessly emotional person who is more interested in insults than actual debate and I do not wish to deal with your personal demons, you can do that on your own. either debate and show me the flaw in my reasoning by countering my arguments with new arguments , but regurgitate the same points, it is boring, stale and shows me that you have no knowledge and what you say is based what you feel in your heart. repeating it continually will not make it true.

If you can call me evil because of a debate, then I truly pity you and cannot justify your self loath with a response and find that the purpose of this debate is pointless and you believe that you inflict harm on my personally by saying this, I would expect nothing less from a person who seems nothing more to himself than just flesh and blood, as such, I conclude that if you call me evil because I do not agree with you in a debate, then clearly you would call God evil because he does not agree with you in your mind , hence to you evil is a subjective term and that's why Richard darwin is your god, as he represents all good to you and anyone who contradicts him is evil. As such richrds's greatest enemy is clearly your greatest enemy.

I have attempted to show my colleague that man has been brutal and killed more people than any other being in existence, this was to show that man exercises violence needlessly and at will , and my attempt was to show that God's intervention was an act of justice specific to the various conditions of men.
What this one is doing, is dismissing my arguments and trying to make this about atheism, it is a kiddish ploy and disheartens any student of intellectual discourse.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

* I do not communicate with someone who is out there to "win".
* I most certainly do not communicate with someone who believes in a homicidal maniac as being just and fair, especially in killing innocent children and babies for whatever reason in any way, shape or form. And even worse you being as patheic and as ridiculous as you truly are trying in any way to justify it when there is no justification for ir. So you can be disappointed all you want.
* You should be disappointed within yourself. And knee deep in it.

Oh and btw, I didn't read passed that you were dissapointed within me, no need. I don't need your astounding crawling worming humility. I can easily rise above creatures like you. The end.
isaacthemaniac

Con

I am debating to win not to have my delusions justified like my opponent. He lacked the insight and resorted cheap shots and dismissiveness. She originally posted the debate for the first person to accept it,However when she was cornered,she resorted to making this debate about atheism vs belief in God, I contend that this debate should go to the one who presented the better arguments.
I have attempted to show that God in the old testament can not be dismissed as a pleasant character because 1.he created man out of nothing and endowed him with immeasurable gifts for instance intellect and insight 2.the verified proofs of biblical tampering show that the old testament contains human distortions that do not strictly represent God's view,3. God's acts of justice are not arbitrary however they are a response to a well defined transgression 4. Unpleasant is subjective and as such every man carries there own definition,hence my opponent's dispute regarding God's mercy was based on her misunderstanding of these attributes;she attempts to judge everything as genocide yet fails to acknowledge the ugly reality of human barbarism, an example of this is shown to a lesser degree in her failure to exercise proper debate conduct and make an active effort to insult her opponent in what is a simple debate. If you read the last argument she made you can see that she attempts to use hubris to replace an intellectual challenge.
The inability of pro to properly articulate their point turned to frustration when confronted with the fact that she did not have knowledge and hence stated that the debate was over because "
I most certainly do not communicate with someone who believes in a homicidal maniac as being just and fair, especially in killing innocent children and babies for whatever reason in any way, shape or form"...Again another statement that shows that she was not interested in debate. The allies won world war 2 and engaged in alot of savagery yet we can debate about what happened and still praise and condemn them,it is an exercise in education,the statement she made shows that the purpose of this debate was for her to get someone to mock and abuse and feel important,these are my thoughts. However,the point of con was to show and alternative explanation and pro took offense when she could not respond and called pro a white racist pig. That oh readers is the level of intellectual and moral bankruptcy that we deal with.
"Knee deep" I suspect that you know nothing about anything and have not taken the time to research your quotes from those you consider your superiors ,as such my disappointed has nothing to do with you as a person, but rather with you not making the debate interesting and instead becoming abusive when faced with a reality that does not match your fantasizes and evolutionary fictions.
I would like to thank you for participating,as much as I am disappointed.,I am glad that you found amusement and had a chance to justify your position. It is unlikely but when in the future you are ready for a real debate you may challenge me,as long as you will exercise good conduct(or try your best)
It is not a bad thing if people do not believe in your delusions and self hate. So please do not be angry at me,if you have a problem with God,the belief thereof and what not that's between you and him ,what is my business making you feel important when you are not?
I took alot of time responding to many points you raised and I am sure you did not expect that and thought this would be a shouting match, I hope you understand that this is why we debate. This is an avenue for the exchange of ideas not for the mockery and insult of other people. I hope in due time you understand this,the law of entropy which is a proven fact contradicts the theory of evolution ,do you know what this law is?Please Google it,its not a bible verse.perharps it could be a topic for you in the future.
I hope you enjoy your next conquests.....indeed some beliefs are pure fiction.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Khons// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The reason that I am choosing con is because of the fact that pro in the second round did not even stay to the topic, that the god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction", in the second round he said that con can't even prove that god exist, which was not was the debate was about, then pro was trying to make it personal, and pro did not use proper grammar when they started off their arguments, so I am going with con because they had the better conduct, and because pro was harassing con with personal things.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine specific points made by both debaters and determine the winner based on a comparison of those points. While the voter does do this to soe degree with Pro"s arguments (it"s still pretty general, as no specific arguments are referenced), the voter fails to assess any of Con"s points. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. While the voter may indeed be correct that harassment occurred in this debate, the voter must point to specific examples.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.