The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Unstobbaple
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

god hates children

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 2 votes the winner is...
Unstobbaple
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 103529
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

backwardseden

Pro

god knowingly creates children to be raped, beaten and tortured at the hands of their abusers... sometimes for decades. An example is "daddy" is sticking in his you know what inside of his daughter age 5 while punching her in the face twice per week for 15 years. To knowingly create children to suffer is 100% pure evil and hate at its finest. You can not get more evil than that with all the hate if you wanted to. Please DO NOT bring in the "Free Will" argument either because children DO NOT have the "Free Will" to escape from these monsters who commit these horrific acts. And god creates these children to suffer as well as these monsters to commit their unspeakable crimes to begin with. god must also love it, otherwise he would create these horrific events. Please DO NOT invent the excuse that "its not god's fault". Well yeah it is. Otherwise, god is NOT in control of everything, nor is he all knowing nor is he all powerful. Nor is god omnipotent. Nor does god care enough to not create these horrific acts. And the worst of the absolute worst is god is giving a greater value, a greater meaning to these monsters to commit these horrific acts while these children suffer at the hands of these savages who have no free will to SCREAM and get away from daddy. God IS hate and evil. Pure and simple. So invent better excuses please. Sure, call me that I “hate” when it was just proven that YOUR god hates and nothing but. AND GOD MUST HAVE GIVEN THAT HATE TO ME AND ALL OF MANKIND. And yes, absolutely 100% that includes YOU by gum!!!!!!! Wow. What a loving god huh? Pathetic, but typical smug christian ideal that doesn't work - ever - excuse on your part.

In other words, god truly hates children which is a truly "duh" situation. The bible proves this time and time again. Also notice how children do not get to say one single sentence in the bible? Not one. Its like having your mouth glued shut for your entire childhood. That's the worst form of child abuse there is - to be neglected and ignored. And the bible does it so well. Sure god and jesus have stated that they love children or whatever, but that's not the same thing. Not by a longshot. How would you like it if someone spoke for you for your entire childhood and you could not say a single word on your behalf? Well, you'd naturally hate it. Also the bible is surely incomplete because there are no voices of children, there are no children talking or singing, or voices of them playing, when it is most assuredly required. How would you like it if you as an adult, who worked so hard for your children, as well you should, and they should always be the center of your life, were to find out that they were left out of your life? Well, once again you'd naturally hate it. And that's exactly what the bible and god has done in leaving children completely out of "their" most supposed sacred book of history that is supposed to engulf everything that was known within their supposed surroundings up until that special moment in time, and yet it completely ignores and neglects children. Well good job for the men who wrote the bible. Not---toooo---bright.

Next round will include verses of god hating children.

Unstobbaple

Con

I accept, thanks for setting this up.

There is no connection between Pro's observations and conclusion. S/he assumes that god is in control of suffering inflicted on children and that the conclusion must be that suffering is a result of god's hatred.

Pro fails to demonstrate that suffering is a direct result of god's hatred toward children.

Assuming a god has control over who suffers and when there are many other explanations for suffering. It could be used as a punishment for sins in past lives as suggested by Hinduism. It's possible that god prefers suffering to pleasure and inflicts suffering as a result of love or another emotion. God may inflict suffering to build character, compassion empathy etc. There is simply no reason to assume that if he inflicts or allows suffering that it is motivated by hatred. There are many possible explanation.

God may have no direct control over suffering.

There are many examples of suffering and no research or any form of inquery has been able to establish that there is supernatural causation behind it. If a god exists it may have no control or limited control over human suffering as in the greek gods that were in no way all powerful/omnipotent. Pro assumes that there is a god without establishing that any god exists. With no evidence for the existence of a god or gods the default position is that no gods exist and Pros resolution is nonsensical. We cannot assume that god hates children until we establish that he exists.

Pro assumes the god of the bible along with many attributes.

Ive suggested this but Pro spends half the time suggesting that since children do not speak or are not heard from in the bible god hates them. If any of the thousands of gods that people have believed in exist, with the exeption of one, the bible is irrelavent. If the god of the bible exists there are many possible reasons not to include quotes from children. There is no connection to hatred here and there are many versus in the bible that indicate that god values and even loves children.

Psalm 127:3 "Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him."

Mattew 18:2-6 "
He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

They also sing in Mattew 21:15 contrary to what Pro suggests, " But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant. "

Irrelevant arguments

Pro argues that God must be all powerfull or not care. This has nothing to do with the resolution because this only negates the Pro position and are concessions on Pro's part. Pro's case rests on the idea that God is all powerful and therefore able to prevent suffering. Pro concedes that a god that is not all powerful or simply does not care about suffering are alternate explanations for god's behavior and this concedes that the resolution has not been proven. A god that is not all powerful could love and not hate children but be unable to prevent suffering. A god that is apathetic to the suffering of children certainly does not hate them.



Pro mades concessions that negate his position. S/he cannot establish a connection between child suffering or lack of presence in the bible and a necessary hatred of children. Pro has done virtually nothing to establish the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

I’ve been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 25,000 and with what you have stated you are right up there with the top 5 most idiotic debates of all time. I’ll tell you something, NO CHRISTIAN who has merit and knows anything at all about the god according to the bible will ---ever--- take your side. I really should insult you, belittle you, degrade you, but you don’t deserve it. After all you assume that in no way is god according to the bible truly a god. Instead you bring in other religions which has nothing to do with the bible, so they do not count and wow do you bring up a lot of invented excuses to cover for something that you pretend you have knowledge upon in which you really don’t.

“There is no connection between Pro's observations and conclusion. S/he assumes that god is in control of suffering inflicted on children and that the conclusion must be that suffering is a result of god's hatred.” Oh that’s absolutely 100% true. If not true than your god is not a god and is not in control of everything, is not all knowing, is not all powerful, does not know everything, is not omnipotent, and most certainly is not perfect. So which is it?

“Pro fails to demonstrate that suffering is a direct result of god's hatred toward children.” I just did. god controls everything or he’s not a god.

“Assuming a god has control over who suffers and when there are many other explanations for suffering. It could be used as a punishment for sins in past lives…” Sins of past lives? Now my retired opponent is reaching from something in which he cannot prove and he cannot even prove that his god exists in the first place. This isn’t Hinduism. Yep. Excuses and nothing but. Oh and btw, there’s no such a thing as sinning in the bible because there’s too much “yes’s and no’s in which cancels each other out as they are major hypocritical contradictions.
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).

“It's possible that god prefers suffering to pleasure and inflicts suffering as a result of love or another emotion.” OK that’s all I needed to know. This debate will be finished after the listing of verses where god spews his hatred towards children thus taking up all the space of 10,000 characters for this round because I 100% agree with you that your god DOES in fact prefer suffering than pleasure and he inflicts suffering to that on children. Oh and btw, if its as you say “as a result” then he’s most certainly not a god, not perfect. You also mentioned “emotion”. What perfect god would have “emotion” especially of that of anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy? Jealousy? What? From a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. So that’s what you bow down to and worship. Good job. Keep it going.

“God may have no direct control over suffering.” Then he’s not a god and wow are you inventing excuses. Sorry You screwed up so badly proving that god is not a god. Ok here’s some verses proving your god truly hates children. After the verses, we’re done.

Lamentations 4: 9-11 "They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. 10 The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people. 11 The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof."

Matthew 10:37 “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Matthew 2:16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.”

Judges 21:10 “And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.”

2 Samuel 12:11-14 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. From evilbible.com [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

Deuteronomy 2:34 “And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:”

Numbers 31:17-18 “17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
---- a different translation ----
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Leviticus 26:21-22 “And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.” Rob you of your children?

Ezekiel 9:5-7 “And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.”

1 Samuel 15:3 “3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a$$.”

Hosea 13:16 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

Hosea 9:11-16 “As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! 13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer.
14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”

Exodus 12:29-30 "And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died."

Exodus 21:14 -17 "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”

Isaiah 13:15-18 "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. 16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.

Summary
Now if you honestly believe after reading the verses that your god does not hate children, then you have serious problems.
Unstobbaple

Con

Pro completely missed my point. His response did not refute my position in any way.

For the record, I’m not a theist. Pro has assumed that he is arguing against a biblical theist position but he isn’t. The resolution simply claims that god hates children. Which god? The God of the bible most certainly doesn’t and the resolution is open to any number of gods.

Our main point of disagreement is our definition of god so here are a couple standard definitions from websters site:
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

-an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

Pro is focused on the first definition and the subtext of his arguments are directed at disproving an all powerful or all loving god and not at proving his resolution is correct. His comments are essentially directed at the god of the bible but there are many other gods.

Does Poseidon or Vishnu hate children? Con has simply asserted that the god of the bible hates children because he could prevent their suffering but does not. He has not established that in any way or explained why we should focus on the god of the bible.

Pro is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He supports the idea that god must not be all powerful and all loving given the suffering that many children endure. This is a concession that a god that hates children is only one possibility when looking at the variety of god claims available. An argument against the god of the bible's existence does not help to establish that god hates children and it’s a bizarre leap to connect these thoughts.

Pro has not defended the resolution

S/he has argued that god could not be both all powerful and all loving given human suffering. This is a Trope among atheists and a common argument against the god of the bible. However, it does nothing to prove that god hates children.

Look at Pro’s comments, “ If not true than your god is not a god and is not in control of everything, is not all knowing, is not all powerful, does not know everything, is not omnipotent, and most certainly is not perfect. So which is it?”

Pron continues to support my argument. If god is not all knowing or all powerful it’s less likely that he hates children. Pro is arguming against the existence of the god of the bible and not that god hates children which is indefensible as a resolution. Pro has not even established that a god exists so there is no reason to believe that he hates children.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Didn't read it. After your fiasco in your solid proof of proving that your god is not a god to not have the ability over suffering, you do not have the ability to debate. Also since you, nor anyone has the capacity, namely you, to overcome the verses presented to ultimately show that your god truly does hate, abuse, cannibalize, rape, thrust swords through children etc etc etc and since you in any way disagree with them which is utterly impossible to and thus only shows you cannot understand the English language, it proves you to be as whacked out as your mentally deranged and sicko god. Is it any wonder why I didn't read what you had to say? You have no defense. None.
Unstobbaple

Con

Pro keeps talking about 'My God' but I'm an atheist and he has emphasized that he did not read my response so I'm confused about what just happened. A god that does not exist can't hate children and the existence of suffering does nothing to prove that hatred is the motivation to create suffering. I'm not clear as to why he keeps mentioning the bible when there are thousands of Gods not referenced in the bible.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

I for some odd reason decided to read the gibberish you posted for your RD3.
You are confused because you accepted a debate for something in which you should have not accepted in the first place as you had no business in doing as such. Not only that, but you are clearly outmanned and outgunned both on the intelligence and edumacation ratios.
Just why did you accept this debate IF AS YOU CLAIM you are an atheist? Oh I get it, it was for you to “think” you could throw your meat wagon around. But in turn I slapped you in the face with it and you just can’t handle that type of rejection.
Now here’s how things are… God does NOT exist. That’s step #1. Step #2 is the mere belief in this god that creates all the hate and as stated in the printed bible as quoted of this supposed non existent god… evil, anger, wrath, rage, vengeance, fury, jealousy. And yeah, man believes in EXACTLY that from HIS made up god of the bible. And this made up god in the bible as printed in text form for everybody to see truly hates children with verse after verse after countless verse. There. All better?
But then again no god would EVER use text nor faith as forms of communication as compared to using actual evidence like getting off his lard butt and talking---to---us. Duh. Which has NEVER HAPPENED. And this so-called god with his superior ego complex would NEVER pass that opportunity up. So what part of that is confusing?
Now who is mentioning "gods"? It has nothing to do with anything. This entire debate is about the god of the bible as specifically stated in RD1. And you wonder why I want to have nothing to drool with you when you drop ship and go to the dead heart of slumberland?
Unstobbaple

Con

Here’s what Pro would have had to establish to link child suffering to a god’s hatred.


  1. A god exists.

  2. It controls who suffers and who doesn’t without interference.

  3. If you cause or allow someone to suffer you must necessarily hate them.


Even if I were to concede that this debate was about the god of the bible (I don’t) he did not establish any of these.


Pro’s concessions.


Con concedes that god does not exist when he says statements like, “God does NOT exist.” if there is no god he can’t hate children.


God prefers suffering, “I 100% agree with you that your god DOES in fact prefer suffering.” A god who prefers suffering would obviously not inflict it out of hatred.


A god would likely not feel emotions making it impossible for him to hate children and negating the resolution, “What perfect god would have “emotion ... What? From a supreme deity?”


-


Thanks to Alex Jones for setting this up. His most inspiring quote was, “Just why did you accept this debate IF AS YOU CLAIM you are an atheist? Oh I get it, it was for you to “think” you could throw your meat wagon around. But in turn I slapped you in the face with it and you just can’t handle that type of rejection.”

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con "mentally deranged" in round three. This is poor conduct.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While I understand that this particular voter has cast similar votes on several debates that one of these debaters has participated in, that is not sufficient reason for removal. The vote meets the standards, explaining why he decided to award conduct based on what was stated in the debate. If the debater(s) wish to exclude this voter in the future, they may include a rule stating that he may not vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by smurfy101 1 year ago
smurfy101
Con should argue that God can't hate children if He doesn't exist.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
If this is Trump satire, well played. otherwise, wtf are you on about? I'm an atheist and your arguments are terrible.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
@Unstobbaple - No there's no way you can possibly take the top spot. Sorry. No one can undermine that one. I mean this little dribble on his way to the basekt actually thought that one of the 10 commandments was overeating and obesity.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
@DNehlsen - See what I mean? You have no genuine friends or loved ones and are only seeking madhouse coffee tea or me attention. So you automatically lose from your brainfart illusions. That's why you are a teeny bopper with no real points to make because you are totally incapable of bringing in any evidence/ proof whatsoever. Now who do you think would win if you and I were on the witness stand? Duh duh dummy.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
I'm honored to be among the top 5 among 25,000 reviewed debaters. With any luck I will take the top spot.
Posted by DNehlsen 1 year ago
DNehlsen
Copy and Paste debate. Just warning to keep that in mind throughout this debate. Debater Pro has no real points further on.
http://www.debate.org...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DNehlsen 1 year ago
DNehlsen
backwardsedenUnstobbapleTied
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: Pro loses conduct for name calling. He also stated he did not read his opponents arguments. Simply because of this, I feel Con wins argument as well. Even still, Con made a good point in saying the specific God being discussed was not specified, and it is therefore impossible to know which God feels what.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenUnstobbapleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con "mentally deranged" in round three. This is poor conduct.