The Instigator
invisibledeity
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

YOU are more moral than the Abrhamic GOD!!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 962 times Debate No: 46012
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

invisibledeity

Pro

People are told that god is all good, moral and perfect. However, comparing the morality of the average person to that of the Abrahamic god raises some serious doubts about those claims.

Moral actions
Anyone can just say they are moral. When gauging morality, actions certainly speak much louder than words. Therefore, when looking at the morality of god, people should compare what they would do to what their god does, or is said to do.

God’s noninterference when watching suffering
As the Abrahamic god is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, he would have to see everything that ever happens. Not only that, being omnipresent, this would be at a level that no human could imagine. This raises some disturbing points.

Any omniscience and omnipresent being would not only see the suffering in the minutest detail, but he would also know all the horror and pain being felt (see god and empathy). The most horrific suffering, from people wasting away from disease to child rape and slow death by torture has occurred more times in human history than can be imagined. How could a just and merciful god sit and watch these things again and again?

Now, ask yourself these questions:

  1. It is right and moral to watch the most horrific suffering and do nothing, especially when you could easily stop it?
  2. Would you watch things like child rape, death by torture, repeatedly, and do nothing?

Normal moral people would answer “no” to the above, and society condemns people who do nothing to stop suffering when it is in their power to do so. Why do people still call their god loving and just when he does exactly the same thing on an unimaginably large scale? Why does what society condemns as a horrible crime suddenly become the exact opposite when a god does it?

Besides, if god created all, wouldn’t he have an even greater responsibility for what happens? Is it rational to only give credit to a creator for the good but none of the blame for the bad (see giving god credit)?

A hell of a question
Then there is the idea of hell. There is the question of the logic and morality of any god that would have his own creations tortured for all eternity over their beliefs as covered in is life a test. However, ask yourself these questions:

  1. Would you create a hell to have people sadistically tortured for any reason, let alone over their beliefs?
  2. Even if you think creating a hell to have people tortured is ok, would you limit the torture? Even torture of a few trillion millenniums would seem very merciful in comparison to all eternity! Would trillions of centuries of torture be more than enough punishment for any crime, let alone a thought crime of following the wrong belief?

If you would not create a hell or even limit the time people are brought back from the dead to be tortured there, you are acting on a morality that shows every indication of being higher than that of the Abrahamic god.

god morality

It is hard to imagine even the most psychotic and evil people in history sitting by and watching their own children being raped and murdered or all the other horrible atrocities that happen so often, and doing nothing even though they could easily stop them. It is virtually certain no human being who has ever lived would want to continue the torture of anyone after trillions of centuries, particularly over belief. However, so many people say a just and merciful god does exactly that!

Therefore, basic human morality is far superior to that of the god so many worship and call on for guidance. Let’s hope your answers above proved you have a much higher level of morality than the Abrahamic god!

Mikal

Con

I am going to take a hypothetical me(anyone) in this scenario. I am going to tackle this with a thought experiment and I will also post this from the perspective of my actual self and my hypothetical self(anyone).

Moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character[1]

Morality - a doctrine or system of moral conduct [2]

"The term “morality” can be used either

(1)descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or

(a)some other group, such as a religion, or
(b)accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

(2)normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons"[3]


So reviewing the resolution, this is a comparative debate.

" You are more moral than the Abrahamic God"

The OP intended for you to mean anyone in this. Saying whomever accepted this debate is more moral than this God. So the next logical process is to assume that anyone in the world is more moral than this God. So there are two ways in which I can tackel this debate

(a) My hypothetical self (anyone) is more moral than the Abrahamic God
(b) I (myself) am more moral than the Abrahamic God

Since I am con in this debate, it is my job to show that I am not more moral than the Abramahic God or that the Abrahamic God is more moral than most people. Actually even If I can just show that the Abrahamic God is just as moral as me I also win this debate. Pro only wins if I am in fact more moral than God.

Before I get into contentions lets look at whom and what the Abrahamic God is.

Abrahamic God - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions" because they all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham. [4]

Note : We are comparing (myself) or (anyone) to the God of all these religions


How to gauge what is moral

First we have to determine whether or not morality is objective or subjective. There are a great many ways to go at this. If morality is objective there has to be a way to determine. Most Christians use God as that gauge. Everything that God commands is moral, everything that he says is wrong is immoral. My adversary never set an outline on what is moral and what is not moral, so I am going to do it for him. The options that are avaible to us

(a) Subjective Morality

Everything is subjective. What is moral in society (a) may not be moral in society (b). When you compare world cultures, each has a different sense of what morality is and it is completely relative depending on what and whom you ask.

(b) Objective morality in the sense of a God

God is the gauge for that and his commands determine what is moral and immoral

(c) Veil of Ignorance.

This is a thought experiment that some philosophers use to determine objective morality without a God.

" The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests. Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons." [5]


Comparing Anyone To God.

This is pretty easy to do. Let's look at some of my adversaries claims.

(1) Not responding to pain. My adversary claims that because God is aware of all the pain in the world, him choosing not to respond to it is immoral. The error with this is that if we are using religion to determine what is moral. The suffering someone is going through could be for a reason. If we are looking at it from a subjective standpoint, not responding to the suffering could be perfectly moral to begin with. Even if we tackle it from the perspective of a rational society and say that we are obligated to respond to pain God is just as immoral as someone who does not donate money to third world countries. To break this down further

(a) If God himself is the objective measure of morality. Him allowing people to suffer is not immoral. God commands what is immoral and people suffering are in his plan.

(b) If morality is subjective. No one is obligated to respond to suffering. So God would not be more moral or less moral than anyone whom chooses to or not to help people whom are suffering.

(c) Even if we use the veil of ignorance. The suffering of one is just as important as the suffering of many. Basically If God chooses to let people suffer, and (I) or (anyone) chose not to donate money to people whom are suffering or at least try and help them we are just as immoral as God which negates the resolution

Most people are just as immoral as God, because they do the same things he does. If we are comparing people to God. They kill, chose to ignore starving people, and are all greedy. Since there are limited ways to gauge whom is more moral than the others, even when we break it down from the 3 ways in which I described earlier. There are some people whom are just as immoral as God. Therefore someone whom took this debate, could be just as immoral as God.


Myself

I have never given money to an overseas charity. I never would go oveseas to help people. Depending on my money siutation, half the time I am entirely focused on myself. I once broke a kids arm because he pushed me. I snapped another guys leg because he grabbed my friends azz. I cuss, I use to drink, and I use to smoke. I have sex before marriage and I am happy about it. In america today most people would probabbly think I was and could still be a heathen.

In some perspetives I am just as immoral as God. I openly chose to ignore the suffering of others, because I want to focus on the suffering of myself first. I chose to take care of myself and my family, instead of focusing on others first. Therefore per comparing morality. I am just as immoral as God

I do not posses a higher degree of morality than him. Therefore this resoultion is negated


Conclusion.

Due to morality being defined in so many different ways, and possibly even being subjective. There is no way to defend this resoultion.






[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[4] http://www.pbs.org...
[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Oops. I mean pro.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
This was clearly plagarism by con, as it's virtually impossible for him to go through a debate without ranting.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
wow ID actually tried on this one. Got noob-bombed tho
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Though anybody who studied the Old Testament closely and Rationally knows full well that the O.T. God was more Malevolent than both Hitler and Stalin combined.
Such malevolence has never been beaten by any human.
No Benevolence exists in the O.T. from it's God.
Omnibenevolence is a Lie!
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
yah
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
And the minds of Apes, Meerkats, Wolves, Voles, etc... Animals have their own morals too.
It is all relative to how they live and socialize.
They are all developed as part of their survival package.

For instance, when food is scarce, some animals will kill their young if there are too many produced to reduce the nutrition drain on the group, yet if food is plentiful and likely to be for a long period of time, they will punish any animal that kills the young, as it is not necessary. It's all relative to their needs and environmental conditions. Meerkats are a good example of an animal that regulates their population due to conditions, thus they have strongly enforced (relative) morality to maintain the population levels and status of the dominant members in the group.
Posted by Technicallyderped 3 years ago
Technicallyderped
Morals don't exist outside of our minds. c:
Posted by Technicallyderped 3 years ago
Technicallyderped
Morals don't exist outside of our minds. c:
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Mikal, HOW DARE U USE COMIC SANS.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
yah
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
invisibledeityMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was subjective, like Plato's concepts, the Morality of the Biblical God is extremely bad, no matter which culture you measure morality from. Such extreme malevolence cannot be surpassed by any I've studied, even Hitler was more Moral than the Biblical God. Con appeared to be in denial of Pro's points on the Biblical God's Malevolence and essentially bypassed or denied it. Though Con provided sources where Pro did not, even with an abundance of sources available.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
invisibledeityMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This being a 1-round debate means that it is pretty much impossible to win if Con provides any kind of coherent argument, which he did.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
invisibledeityMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: (b) If morality is subjective. No one is obligated to respond to suffering. So God would not be more moral or less moral than anyone whom chooses to or not to help people whom are suffering. I liked this verse.
Vote Placed by YewRose19298 3 years ago
YewRose19298
invisibledeityMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ... lol
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
invisibledeityMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Args to Con. I had no problem with Pro's position and his arg were just fine. However, Pro's weakness was the framing of the debate, an ordinary person vs Yahweh. If Pro had simply asserted that Yahweh's behavior as a biblical character behaves immorally, Con would have had a much more difficult argument. In this case, the frame was weak and Con took out that frame with a "who me? what is moral, anyway?" mallet quite handily.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
invisibledeityMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Args to Con. I had no problem with Pro's position and his arg were just fine. However, Pro's weakness was the framing of the debate, an ordinary person vs Yahweh. If Pro had simply asserted that Yahweh's behavior as a biblical character behaves immorally, Con would have had a much more difficult argument. In this case, the frame was weak and Con took out that frame with a "who me? what is moral, anyway?" mallet quite handily.