The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

It is required that god be ousted from power due to his violent, evil and hateful ways and behaviors

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,322 times Debate No: 102705
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (90)
Votes (3)




It is required that god be ousted from power due to his violent, evil and hateful ways and behaviors
Since this is obviously and blatantly true, as proved within verse after countless verse in the bible, as god truly hates children for jeez sakes, this debate will prove that the god of the bible is required to be ousted from his toilet of power and does not deserve to rule over anyone or anything, not ever again.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: 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

Rules for this debate:
* Obviously within the 5 rounds perhaps more than 10,000 characters will be required to say what needs to be said. Should this happen, carryovers into the comment section will be accepted and debates can continue from there.
* Perhaps more than 5 rounds will be required to prove that god is a maggoty indigestible loathsome creature who nibbles on the backside of the human soul to rectify his frail precious superior ego complex... If this is to be the cuddly little case, then the arguments can surely be taken to the comments section.
* Verses will only be accepted as their verses only and will not be taken out of context.
* If you do not show any intelligence nor an edumacation on the subject(s) that you claim to profess having a knowledge upon and you really don’t, you will rightly be degraded, humiliated and dehumanized with super duper garlic onion beer cheezy insults. Rightly. Justly. Deservedly. Duh.
* Sidetracking into nosehair la la land and not remaining on target/ with utter lack of focus will not be accepted. A perfect example of this: Say I bring up a verse which blatantly shows god’s hatred and then you bring up Free Will. That’s sidetracking. That will not be accepted. And it will rightly be ignored.
* If you wish to counter something I have said, great! Then you need to prove the “why” you are countering it with solid evidence and with the explanation. Chapters and verses only please from your bible. And not some made up hogwash that you plucked from a jesus jujitsu class.
* Misinterpretations will not be accepted
* Absolutely no creationist will be accepted for any reason which includes any point of reference. Period. Why? Because if any creationist had any balls they would put god on trial again. So why haven’t they? Its because they 100% know that they will fail. Its because all that these born losers 100% know that all that they have is faith based oriented and faith cannot be proved.

In this debate some of the many following subjects will be discussed that will utterly prove and show that god is incompetent so it was a requirement that according to the bible, which is really coughed up diseased and so sickening, that it was a requirement for him to rely on violence, hate and evil, when peaceful solutions could have easily been reached and achieved. There’s absolutely no reason, none for the list below to have ever existed.
* The great flood
* god and his many genocides
* god hates children
* god hates gays
* god hates women
* god loves raped women
* god hates gays
* god hates anybody and everybody that disagrees with him
* god is essentially a baby wanting his rattle going goo goo ga ga
* god and his immorality
* 2,821,364


I am more than willing to debate this topic with you, but only in a mature way. You seem to be very close-minded and full of yourself. In order for this debate to work, you will have to open up your mind a little bit. Also, threatening to humiliate people just because they disagree with you is childish. You need to grow up and learn to respect others, even if they disagree with you. Dehumanizing people in a debate is very immature and just shows you are more interested in attacking the person instead of defending your position. If you are more interested in attacking people, find somewhere else to be. If you are willing to actually defend your position, I'll be glad to talk to you.

That being said, you have to understand that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways by various religions, so when you say that "misinterpretations will not be accepted", you have to understand that your interpretation is not the only one, and calling others' interpretations "misinterpretations" is just like saying someone has a wrong opinion.

First of all, there are many violent stories in the bible as you have said. However, I would like you to let me know where you found information in the Bible that stated that God hates children, gays, women, and everyone who disagrees with him. Obviously you have not read the Bible, because it is clear many times in it that he loves EVERYBODY. He loves children very much. He loves homosexuals, he loves women, he loves everyone. Just because he has dealt with many people from the Bible in a violent way doesn't mean he hates everyone. There are many stories of him performing miracles, healing people who were sick and even dead. Clearly this wouldn't have happened if he didn't have some kind of love. Also, the amount of violent stories that occur are small compared to the many kind actions he did. You cannot take these fewer cases and apply them to all, saying that he hates everyone.

Let me put this into perspective. Think about your parents when they were raising you (or if they are still raising you, I haven't looked at your age yet on your profile). Some things you had to learn through discipline. I'm sure you did, or have done, things that upset them growing up; I know I did, many times because I just didn't know better, or I still needed some discipline. Whenever you made a mistake, do you think your parents all of a sudden hated you? Of course not. They love you enough to teach you how to act later in life. They are trying to raise you to become a fine human being, not to hate you because of every little mistake you make. In other words, you do not have to love what a person does to love that person. Your parents do not have to love your actions in order to love you.

The same applies with God. Every human being that has ever existed on this Earth has been, and is, deeply loved by God. Many make mistakes, and he is saddened by their choices. They receive punishments just like we all do when are parents feel we need it. But he still loves them. Therefore, you cannot put words in his mouth solely based off of his actions.

You stated: "it was a requirement for him to rely on violence, hate and evil, when peaceful solutions could have easily been reached and achieved." I could show you many examples where this is not true. He always tried to handle situations peacefully first. When people continue to fight against him, after he has lovingly tried to fix whatever problem may have been happening, he has to take a more firm step. Also, it is not evil to punish someone who has been wicked or bad.

You stated: "There"s absolutely no reason, none for the list below to have ever existed." How do you know this? How do you know that he didn't try desperately to prevent the great flood before it happened? How do you know what was going on in his mind? How do you know what his reasoning was, and what makes you think that your reasoning is superior to his? Also, in this list you only stated two real occurrences that ever happened: the great flood and the "genocides" (they were not genocides). The rest was just solely your opinion that has no connection to the Bible.

I really hope we can be mature in this debate. I'm looking forward to your responses.
Debate Round No. 1


“Now I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion and organized religion. Absolutely convinced of it. And I think it, religion, should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.” Christopher Hitchens

Do you want to know how many your god has innocently murdered in your bible that most assuredly included innocent children and babies for absolutely no reason at all because this god of yours is in fact a two year old goo goo ga ga child who likes to throw temper tantrums, just like every supreme deity should with his baby rattle and all and could not figure out a peaceful solution? Its 2,821,364. Now take one lucky stab in the dork at how many satan has murdered in your bible? Go on. Guess. Give up? Its 10.

Your god is immoral and thus needs to be removed from his supposed immortal high holiness throbbing throne toilet office NOW.

Due to the fact that you are still in high school and several pay grades below me, your maturity level isn’t quite there now is it?

Here’s a wonderfully chummy verse that is all snuggly and cozy as soft as down:
KILLING, TORTURING NON-BELIEVERS: The Bible is clear — people who do not believe in God and Jesus are to be killed and/or tortured: 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13 "And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

Pay attention to what was said in round 1: “If you do not show any intelligence nor an edumacation on the subject(s) that you claim to profess having a knowledge upon and you really don’t, you will rightly be degraded, humiliated and dehumanized with super duper garlic onion beer cheezy insults. Rightly. Justly. Deservedly. Duh.” Wow id you fit the top og the bill with your swine flu round 1. Its also something you will learn in college. Well welcome to the big leagues. Now the reason(s) are painfully clear as to why this is so.
1. If you have any friends or loved ones you don’t dare pull that on them otherwise you soon will have no friends or loved ones. So…
2. Why should I deal with it from you? And when that happens, you fully deserve to be belittled, degraded, and dehumanized into prefrabric of non existence.
3. If you do that kind of B.S. on your teachers, instant F without even thinking twice.
4. Or get up and leave. And chances are that’s what your friends and loved ones will do as stated in #1. But #2 spices up things a bit.
And if you don’t like how I conduct things, leave. I---don’t---care. I’m not here to please a little roach meat like you. Got it? Especially when you happen to be nearly 100% (though not all the way) wrong.

* I guess I have to repeat this one. Misinterpretations will not be accepted. Now that’s big and bold. K? And here’s why... so then you come across someone who interprets “the the the” and then someone from across the hall interprets “and and and”. So who over the thousands of years is correct you total fricken moron? See that’s why NO SUPREME DEITY WOULD HAVE EVER COMMUNICATED IN TEXT FORM THE WORST FORM OF COMMUNICATION. Especially without an update in 2,000 years or longer so we could all blunder into it and get it wrong. So don’t tell me I know nothing about the bible, when you know nothing about it. That was fun.

So let’s move on...
See, there’s yah goes rights on in calling me “closed-minded”, when god and the christian religion is hinged upon its closed-mindedness and nothing but. Its god’s way or its death. Sounds pretty closed minded to me. And to you if there’s a little whiff of that apple butter in your socket you call a brain.

Deuteronomy 13: 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.
Now read the entire sickening chapter.
And it is repeated again in Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 “2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”
Wow such wonderful pleasant loving kind words huh coming from YOUR god. What a great role model - right?

So you either believe in your god or you die. Its that simple.

Now here’s the trick of it… Strange, I don’t believe in your god as it stands today. Neither do billions of others. Thankfully. Rightly. Justly. What idiot would want to after reading that rubbish or any of it?So according to those verses and chapters it is according to your god, it is up to you to come on down here and murder me and everyone who does not believe in your god. If you believe in him. Whatsamatter you are not going to do it? Why not? Why are you not going to follow your god’s laws, rules and regulations? And since you are obviously not going to murder me and billions of others, due to a truly insane law that should have never been implemented in the first place because in no way could it have ever been followed, just as many of god’s laws are, that means that you directly disobey your god. Well many congratulations on that. So you worship your god as you please and for what is convenient for you. So you don’t truly believe in your god at all, you believe in your god as per however you wish and what suits you. Welp, its not what god wants now is it? Nope.

Let’s move on. We’ve already killed 3 of the list with a partial of the 4th.

Now let’s discuss genocide. After all there’s been more genocides, by far committed by god than any other practitioner in the history of things that could smell a happy hairy hard off during a winter thaw in the jungle for the orchid blooming festival.
Really? A genocide is “love”? The deliberate murder of countless children, babies, women, men is somehow “kindness”, “care”, a parade to end all of marching bands with a resurrected Nirvana (easily the worst band of all time) leading the triumph down the sewers? Um no. A-n-y genocide is 100% pure hate and evil and nothing but.
Here are a few of the genocides YOUR god committed which are beyond atrocities. 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 “love” within any genocide.
This supposed “god” of YOURS is supposed to be a supreme deity, as high as it gets, and he cannot think of a peaceful solution to any of it? What an arrogant a$$.

“” Kenny

Then there’s the almighty. The big one. The great flood. The one that never happened in spite of what Ken Ham thinks and can’t prove. This god of YOURS has so much “love” for one species, that he is going to wipe out this one species AND every other living thing (saving only 2 of each species IS the same thing as wiping out every living thing because the gene pool would be so low that each species would not be able to bounce back from that, much less within 6,000 years as to what we see it today for most species), only to recreate that same species that he set out to destroy in the first place is such a major contradiction in a book of thousands of contradictions AND to top it off? The idea of the great flood was plagiarized to begin with from many other religions, myths and legends.

Nice invented excuse that your god loves homosexuals. As stated, but you can’t read, chapters and verses only please. But you know what? I agree with you whereas nearly every other christian would skin---you---alive as a faked botatoe.

Nice invented excuse, but you can’t read, chapters and verses only please where your god specifically states he loves children. Its only about 2 verses in your ENTIRE bible and that’s it. That doesn’t count. Round 2 will be dedicated towards your god’s hatred towards children. And don’t you dare bother trying to put that smug little smirk on your cheap little face as christians always do.

And you know what? Your god hates women also by gum. Do you know anything at all about your bible and god? Clearly not. Now god did say that he loves a couple of them. But that’s not the same thing as saying that he love them as a race now is it? He most certainly praises rape. We’ll get into the rape part a little later. Probably rounds 3 or 4 if you are stupid enough to stick around.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”


First of all, my opponent doesn't seem to provide evidence really well. In the first paragraph, all he is doing is taking someone else's claim and making it his evidence.

Secondly, my opponent seems to like using the "ad nauseam" logical fallacy (argument to the point of disgust, such as by repetition). He has stated repeatedly that he feels God has killed people for no reason, without offering any support for his reasoning. He assumes that by repeating this position over and over again, he will prove his point to me. He is purely using his emotions as support rather than giving actual reasoning.

My opponent has stated: "Your god is immoral and thus needs to be removed from his supposed immortal high holiness throbbing throne toilet office NOW." It seems so far that the only reasoning he has provided is that he has killed people "for no reason." Clearly my opponent has not read the Bible. God is not a person who would embrace killing innocent humans for no reason, especially since he loves everyone. My opponent apparently fails to understand each of the stories in their context.

Here is one of the biggest components of my opponent's arguments. He is embracing the "ad hominem" logical fallacy. This is an argument that is directed at the person instead of the idea. Here is one great example of this: "Due to the fact that you are still in high school and several pay grades below me, your maturity level isn"t quite there now is it?" First of all, he has no information to base this off of, as he has no idea what my grades are or how I am performing in school. He is simply using emotions. Secondly, this is an attack on me instead of my arguments. In a way, he is trying to show that because he feels I'm not up to par with his definitions of maturity, I have no right or reason to disagree with him. This is not true. He is trying to deviate from combating my arguments by attacking me instead.

It is now in the second round of this debate he has begun to offer any evidence whatsoever. He cites some versus from the Bible. However, he fails to understand the context in which they were given. Instead, he is taking the verses at face value rather than reading the rest of the context. This is not the way to read the Bible. After reading the WHOLE chapter of 2 Chronicles 15, it has become clear to me that my opponent did not consider some vital information given before the verses he cited. In verse 8 of this chapter, we read: "And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the Lord, that was before the porch of the Lord." This shows that the city was not full of innocent people, as my opponent is speculating. They were in great crime and wickedness, as it states that they were worshiping idols instead of the Lord. This death that was being talked about was not directed at those who simply chose to not follow him. It was directed towards those who were living in wickedness, saying that if they continued, they would be punished.

Continuing on, he continues the "ad hominem" fallacies. He thinks that he can determine who is educated, and who is not, just so he can harass them. Again, this is avoiding the argument at hand. If he wants to call me "swine flu, roach meat, etc." that's fine. I don't care, he is an American and has a 1st Amendment right to express himself. All he is doing is putting me down without making much effort to argue his claims. I can tell he is very passionate about this topic, so I think his time would be better spent on the topic, not me.

As he builds his "arguments", he attempts to throw a "red herring" fallacy, or a distraction at me. He makes a claim that text is one of the worst forms of communication. This is an opinion, not a fact, that has no relation to the point he is trying to make.

In his next citation of the Bible, he takes it out of context. In Deuteronomy 13, God is warning his people not to fall for false prophets that would lead his people away. He tells them that if they find such a prophet, to put him to death. This shows again that the death God ordered was not derived from pleasure, but from wickedness of the people themselves. "So you either believe in your god or you die. Its that simple." Well, no it's not. These chapters he cites show time and time again that wickedness of people led to their deaths, not God wanting to kill for pleasure.

Now he proceeds to make oversimplifications from faulty premises. He somehow thinks that because God punished wickedness by death, it is our obligation to do so. Not only is this not true, it's a ridiculous oversimplification. One of the 10 Commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill". (I can already sense that an opposition to this will be something like, "if he tells you to not kill people, why does he do it himself?) Because it is his job to judge people, not ours. He has the right to deal with us in any way he sees fit. So to say that I have an obligation to murder my opponent is absurd, as this is not anywhere near what God wants us to do. Here is another example of his attempts to distract me from the topic.

My opponent then attempts to define all the killings done by God as "genocide". While I can see how he may feel this way, he seems to forget God's thoughts in the whole thing. Genocide, as he has stated, is "100% pure hate and evil". God, however, as I established earlier, loves everyone. He doesn't have to love their actions in order to love them. If they make mistakes, there are consequences to those mistakes. But these deaths were NEVER done from hate. Therefore, from my opponent's own definition of genocide, these deaths in the Bible were not genocide.

Moving on to the topic of The Great Flood, my opponent, again, refuses to look at the entire picture. Those who were living at the time, with the exception of Noah, his family and a few others, were doing so in extreme wickedness. God sent Noah to try to get the people to get their act together. He tried many times. Warnings came; they were told they would be destroyed if they did not stop their wrongdoings. They did not listen to him. So God sent the flood to wipe them out, but before he did, he warned Noah and all others who were righteous to build a boat so they wouldn't drown. This seems just to me. Only the wicked were killed, and the innocent were spared. I don't see how that is evil in any way. As far as the animals go, it does seem unusual that they were able to explode in population at the rate that they did. But God made it work. How? I don't know. It doesn't matter how. The fact of the matter is he did it. Also, legends of similar stories have nothing to do with influencing his decisions, nor with what we are discussing.

Now I will give references that show that God loves everyone. Proverbs 3:12 "For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 13:34 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Mark 10:13-16 "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

I would like my opponent to, after reading these references, articulate where he got the idea that God hates children.

Now my opponent tries to show that God hates women. There are footnotes in the verses he has cited which elaborate on the meaning of them. These verses tell women to be humble (this is the implicit meaning of "silent") and not attempt to be dominant over the man. This does not imply that the man is above the woman. They are equal. He then proceeds to tell me that I have not read the Bible, yet refuses to do so himself.

In conclusion, my opponent does not go about debating this topic in a good way. These include actions such as:

*Using many different types of logical fallacies and faulty thinking as a main argument strategy
*Bringing attacks on his opponent rather than the ideas in the debate
*Refusing to look at any context whatsoever in which the verses he cited were used in
*Oversimplifying actions he has seen and applying them to today
*Overall immature conduct that shows he is more interested in harassing people for disagreeing with him rather than productively defending his position

Furthermore, he makes no connections as to WHY he feels God should be removed from power. All he is trying to do is prove that God is evil. As for my final statement on the prompt itself: God is in no way evil, hateful, or corrupt towards his people, and therefore even thinking about removing him from power is sickening.

I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses, and I hope that he begins making logical connections in his arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Rounds III is absout the children. It should have been rounds III AND IV

Do not dare tell me or anyone who has studied the bible in depth that I am taking these verses out of context because then you’d have to prove it for each and every single verse. Chapters and verses only please.
And oh yes your god as proved within these verses below truly hates children. Ready? You shouldn’t be because of how sick and demented and diseased these verses are.
This is as sick and as demented and as warped as it gets. And what “good” do these verses do? What do they teach us? Not one god damned thing.
Yeah your god is not fit to command, well actually sit on any throne, except for his vomit of any kind.

Well you shouild be enthralled. Guess what? You've probably won. I cannot present my srguments in their full glorious detals as pre ordered bible on how it presents them. Why? Because this system will not take its profanities. So I cannot properly presenmt my case as far as how sick and disgusting your god truly is towards children and how he treats childeren in which was/ is completely inhumane. And I'd be willing to bet that its going to be that way for the rape verses also. Its multiple verses. Its isn't just one verse. And I'll be damned if I am going to go back and go through all multiple verses to get one right here and here to try and get this one or that one right to fit with this or that because this fricken system won't take one, just one fricken word that I can't find and eliminiate. So eat it up dodge ball boy.

Just for the record the verses were...

Lamentations 4: 9-11,
Matthew 10:37

Judges 21:10
Numbers 31:17-18
Leviticus 26:21-22
2 Samuel 12:11-14[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!

1 Samuel 15:3
Hosea 13:16
Ezekiel 9:5-7
Exodus 12:29-30
Exodus 21:14 -17
Hosea 9:11-16

Exodus 21:17
Leviticus 20:9
Isaiah 13:15-18

Matthew 10:21
Mark 7:10
Matthew 15:4
Judges 11:30-40
Psalms 137:8-9
2 Kings 6:28-29
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Judges 19:24-29
Exodus 12:29
God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?
Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god.
2 Kings 2:23-24
You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.
Leviticus 26:29
Isaiah 13:15-18
Jeremiah 11:22-23
Jeremiah 19: 7-9
Jeremiah 51:22-26
Lamentations 2:20-22
Revelation 2:18-23

A child, age 6 for example who has stage 4 cancer, does not know what is happening to him/ her. Their cries are not heard, that they are in constant pain unless they are given sedatives/ pain killers, that they are terrified, that they are in an unfamiliar place (a hospital of some kind as an example), and are not home unless it is special circumstance, that they really do not understand what suffering is, but those around them probably do, etc etc etc.

Oh and btw, YOUR god put children in that position of suffering to begin with which is 100% pure evil and hate. YOUR god absolutely loves to knowingly suffer, otherwise he would not create their situations for them to suffer.

And btw, I know that you know that you cannot contemplate suffering at all. Your precious jesus went through 12 hours, tops, of suffering. Some children go through decades of suffering. Your precious jesus had it easy. Now please do tell me what a child can possibly learn from suffering? Much less an adult? If you’ve answered nothing, you’ve answered correctly.

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. 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 a 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.

I will be sleeping for a day or longer. I haven't slept on a good 56 hours. I'm really tired. Who knows if I will continue the debate? The fact that the system has not taken verses as they are so everybody can see them, including you because I know you won't look them up, really swings the debate unfairly towards your side.


My opponent begins by sort of "self-contradicting" himself. He denies that he is taking the verses he previously cited in round two out of context, saying that I would have to prove him wrong. However, this is exactly what I did in the previous round. I gave him information on the whole chapters that he read from, telling him about the context about the entire chapter, and how the verses related to it. He even asked for chapters and verses only, which I gave him. The way he described the verses was, many times, far from the actual meaning. My opponent loves to take these verses rather literally than taking time to understand what they are really saying.

Secondly, he doesn't acknowledge any information that I gave him, even after he asked for it himself. After giving him specific references to the Bible, he denies that they have any meaning whatsoever, saying that they don't teach us anything. He only takes time to look into verses deeply that end up benefiting him. He is analyzing for his own convenience, again, not taking into any account the citations I gave him.

My opponent then creates another "ad nauseam" logical fallacy, by re-stating, as he has done a number of times which I can't count anymore, that he feels God is unjust and inhumane. He seems to think that by repeating this claim over and over again, its meaning will somehow become more meaningful and effective. This is not what is happening. He is, in fact, wearing his claims out by repeating them so much.

I will respond to the references my opponent offers in short answers for each. Every number of the list relates to the corresponding reference.
1. The city of Zion was in great sin and iniquity, which is why conditions were this way.
2. God clearly commanded that we should love him with all of our strength, as seen in Matthew 22:37. The verse my opponent gives is not saying that we shouldn't love our parents. It does say that most of our love should be dedicated towards God.
3. Again, my opponent fails to take into account that great sin and wickedness preceded this.
4. This was commanded by God because they were in great wickedness.
5. God warned them in these verses that if they turned to sinful and wicked ways, these things would happen. Again, it's all related to wickedness.
6. David brought this upon himself. He was the one who committed adultery, which is one of the worst sins in the eyes of God. This was his punishment.
7. My opponent does not consider who the Amalekites were. They were people who attacked God's people. God ordered them to be killed due to their wickedness.
8. Again, the wickedness and sinfulness of the city is the reason for this.
9. Those slain were wicked.
10. This one will take a longer explanation. The Egyptians were holding the Israelites captive, treating them horribly and making them their slaves. God had mercy on his people because they continued to put their faith in him. He sent many warning signs before the smote the firstborn of every Egyptian family, as can be seen in Exodus chapters 7-10. God did not immediately kill the firstborns. He took a more peaceful path at first, as my opponent has stated in the first round that he DIDN'T do. The Egyptians refused to let the Israelites go, so God had to resort to this.

That is all I'm going to explain for now. It has become clear that my opponent has not read all of these chapters from which he cites the verses from. He refuses to acknowledge in any way what the actions of the people were who this happened to. In fact, it is possible that my opponent has not even read these references at all, as it is easy to google references in which God killed people, and then copy and paste those into where ever he wants. If he had found these verses through actual study of the Bible, he would have also come across the many times it states WHY God did what he did, and the actions of the people that led him to take that course of action.

Furthermore, my opponent cannot claim God to be an evil person just by looking at these references alone, as they do not present any context whatsoever. It would be just like me calling my parents evil human beings after only looking at the punishments they have given me, and not taking any thought into the big picture. My parents are not evil because punishments have much more to them than they seem at face value. In the same way, God cannot be considered evil after just looking at verses where he has killed people. My opponent needs to look at the big picture.

With only this information, my opponent proceeds to put the blame on God, saying that all of this death and destruction was his fault, and he is therefore evil. After analysis of the verses he has provided, this is nonsense. It was through the actions of the people in question that brought about their own death and destruction. He seems to think that because of all of this suffering, God has come to delight in suffering. This is also complete nonsense, as he as offered no evidence to support this. Nothing is ever said or implied that shows that God loved the suffering.

Next, my opponent proceeds to take about the suffering Jesus went through before his death. He makes the faulty assumption that because the period of suffering was relatively short, he did not suffer much. That is not true. He has not looked into the accounts of Jesus when he was suffering, such as Luke 22:40-45. It states that his suffering was so great, he bled from every pore of his body. He felt every pain, agony, emotion, and sickness of every human being that ever lived on this earth AT ONCE. So my opponent is correct in saying that some people of this earth have suffered for decades, but he doesn't realize that Jesus felt this suffering, in addition to all other kinds, at one time.

Now my opponent tries to throw another distraction at me. He begins to try to connect abusiveness to the purposes of children being created by God. He makes a claim that children were created by God to be abused. He gives an example of child abuse, which I will not deny, does in fact happen in our world today. Yet, he makes no connections as to why he feels children were created for this purpose. This is nothing more than oversimplified assumptions driven by emotions. He has no way to show that these were the purposes of children. These aren't even passages from the Bible, which is why it classifies as a distraction. He goes on to use the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy (correlation for causation). He tries to say that because God doesn't stop this suffering, children are made for it and/or God is evil. These arguments are extremely faulty, as he puts two things together that don't go together. He can't say children were made for suffering just because we have children suffering today.

I love what my opponent does next. He builds up a straw man fallacy (taking positions that no reasonable person would disagree with as a way to advance your arguments). First, he states that children's voices are never heard in the Bible. While this might be true, he seems to think it was because God "shut them out". This is an unrelated claim. It very well could've been because nothing said by children was significant enough to include. Here comes the straw man. He tries to put me in someone else's shoes by asking how I would feel if I was in situation "X". The situation he presents would obviously be undesirable by any reasonable person. This does not advance his arguments in any way.

I hope my opponent has some good rest over the next few days. I would like to let him know that I did in fact look up the references he gave. That's how I was able to provide the context of them. He claims the debate is shifted unfairly towards my side. I would have to disagree. He is the one who is using faulty premises to build his arguments from, as I have established many times.

I would like to leave my opponent with one final thought. Why haven't you looked deeper into these verses? Why do you think you can be so judgmental of God without understanding his actions? Why do you feel you have the duty to harass others for their religious beliefs? Why are you analyzing upon your own convenience?

I look forward to hearing my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 3


My so-called opponent with an obvious ticker tape parade and his smug smile as all christians have, doesn’t get that his entire bible is a major contradiction in its own right as there are at least 1,000 contradictions in it alone with quite a few lies in it as well, thus making it unreadable. But as stated before no supreme deity would ever communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible.

OK fine then don’t prove me wrong. Then the verses are to be taken as they are, literally btw, so then that means that I am right and so are those that knowingly study the bible and not my opponent who clearly does not study the bible, he just bluffs his way onto center stage, as I posted the verses in round III which showed verses of children clearly suffering for no reason at all. Sick, disgusting, perverted, horrific, unpleasant, shocking indeed, and knowingly causing the suffering to innocent children, and sometimes showing the suffering of babies and women. Thus that right there shows the absolute incompetence of god and all he is is a worthless slice of toxic bile that is required to be ousted from his granny fart positioning and the sooner the better. Now what are verses like those doing in any bible? What do they prove?

Only a select group of dwindling christians think as my opponent does. Is it any blunder why christianity is failing drastically worldwide since 2007? Nope. NEWSFLASH: Its because of doomed failures like my opponent. My opponent thinks he back-doored me with chapters so he could out-do the coughed up diseased verses as stated. Well really? According to what? Him? How would he know? What grade of rainbow delight farm instagram fairy tell signs in his happy hairy hard off head did he come up with these ideals BEFORE I posted the verses? He must be king-Arab-toilet-dust-super-hero who paints smiley faces on black holes as his super powers. In fact, my lovely brides maid sing-a-long doesn’t know his bible at all in which is so oblivious to all of mankind hairy ape syndrome.
* Now supposed he’s right for a single quadrillionth of a second, well gosh golly gee, when stripped down, the hate, evil, pain and suffering in those verses that my opponent DID NOT LOOK UP and he knows it, is all shimmering and bright and still there.

Round III goes to me. Especially especially especially considering the fact that my opponent does not and cannot even contemplate what child abuse is. Oh but YOUR god can and does.

“God has killed people for no reason, without offering any support for his reasoning.” What an utterly stupid statement that could have only been stated by a child obviously still in high school. Hey stupid, you answered the question. Duh. NEXT:

“He assumes that by repeating this position over and over again,...” Yes, the hatred of god needs to be repeated over and over again. Duh. Um what is the title of this debate? But I get it, you are still in high school with an obvious and seriously stunted and dimwitted high school edumacation and intelligence and wow does it show. If you do it again, and I am sure you will, your entire argument for round II will be ignored and I will move on to gays and rape. Got it blah blah black sheep who cannot possibly have any genuine friends or loved ones?

Then you make the erroneous statement of “God is not a person who would embrace killing innocent humans for no reason, especially since he loves everyone.” Prove god loves everyone. Chapters and verses only please. In truth I hope that you find them,well actually I have shown you that your god in your bible in fact does not love everyone. So that’s a contradiction and a major contradiction at that. So indeed my poor little lost sheep, you do not know your bible AT ALL to make such a stupid statement.

Citing verses from your bible IS evidence you dimwit cow dung larvae.
“However, he fails to understand the context in which they were given.” Oh really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? What grade of dumpster diving hamster se’habla espanol have you graduated from to make such interpretations from?

“In verse 8 of this chapter, we read: "And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the Lord, that was before the porch of the Lord."” “This shows that the city was not full of innocent people, as my opponent is speculating.” Sorry, those people were innocent to have that much hate directed at them. Period and especially towards children you total piece of trash. As stated YOUR god could have easily thought of a peaceful solution. But no he loves hate. Oh but wait, you just got caught and proved wrong. Your god does not love everyone now does he? Not by a long shot.

* I win round II because YOUR god could have easily thought of a peaceful solution rather than all of this hate. All you’ve provided was showing this hate that your god provided.

Let’s move onto gays and more hate…

Here’s why text is always a bad idea within your bible and god transmitter...
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If a man lies [intimately] with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed a detestable (perverse, unnatural) act; they shall most certainly be put to death; their blood is on them.

If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
“If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman,” Notice how this version is digging into the transgender issue? And then it goes way way way way overboard with its thesaurus digging ins of “offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable);” I mean how does this version know that its translation is EXACTLY right?

If a man has sexual intercourse with a man as he would with a woman, the two of them have done something detestable. They must be executed; their blood is on their own heads.
“If a man has sexual intercourse with a man as he would with a woman, the two of them have done something detestable.” Completely and totally 100% different from “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: “ And then the CEB continues “They must be executed;” Here we go with the thesaurus issue “they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

It’s disgusting for men to have sex with one another, and those who do will be put to death, just as they deserve.

“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.

If a man ·has sexual relations [LR39;lies] with another man as a man does with a woman, these two men have ·done a hateful sin [committed an abomination]. They must be put to death. They have brought ·it [blood] on themselves [18:22].
A hateful sin?

When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.
Well well well well this has 0 to do with the KJV. “both men are doing something disgusting”? “They deserve to die?” Hmmm a Cannibal Corpse song? Oh that’s a good one.

“‘A man might have physical relations with another man as a man does with a woman. If he does, these two men have done a hated sin. They must be put to death. They have brought it on themselves.
“‘A man might have physical relations” MIGHT? And notice how neatly “They have brought it on themselves.” is tacked on which has NOTHING to do with any other version? Hmmmm.

The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.
Ah yes, NOTHING whatsoever to do with the KJV. Nothing.

“If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.
Using the thesaurus again?

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
detestable? Bloodguiltness? Why do bible’s go-out-of-their-way to be confusing and thus use terms from the thesaurus? Why not use the original terminology?

Suppose a man has sex with another man as he would have sex with a woman. I hate what they have done. They must be put to death. Anything that happens to them will be their own fault.
”I hate what they have done.” WHAT? What does that have that have ANYTHING to do with anything? “Anything that happens to them will be their own fault.” Kind of ad libbing there just a bit huh?

If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both of them have done a very sinful act. They must be put to death. They will suffer for their own sin.
“They will suffer…” more terminology.

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
“They are guilty of a capital offense.”? Wow. So raping a 6 year old girl has the same value or less than homosexuality in their book? Oh and oh yeah, they also use the term “homosexuality’.

If a man sleepeth with a man, by lechery of a woman, ever either hath wrought unleaveful thing, die they by death; their blood be on them. (If a man sleepeth with a man, like in fleshly coupling with a woman, they both have done an unlawful thing, and they both shall be put to death; their blood be on them.)
Se habla Espanol?

Continued in the comments section


To begin, my opponent states that there are at least 1000 contradictions in the Bible. He has no evidence to support this, and is therefore basing it off of pure speculation. He also states, as he did in the previous round, that God would not communicate in text form, saying it is the worst form of communication possible. This is just an opinion which he has backed up by no evidence. Also, he doesn't seem to consider that text was the only form of communication back in the Biblical times. So other than God talking directly to people, the only other way to spread his teachings was through written documents. They did not have cell phones, internet, computers, etc. I would like my opponent to consider this question: Why, if text is such a bad form of communication, do we still use it today, when we DO have cell phones, internet, computers and other technology?

I do not understand why my opponent then goes on to claim that I did not prove him wrong, when I spend most of the previous round doing so. In addition, he has not offered any feedback whatsoever on the context of the verses I gave him, and why he still feels that they should be taken literally. He continues to claim that they are just evil and nothing else. I would like him to provide me with some SPECIFIC feedback on my arguments against his. He claims that the only way to read the Bible is to take the verses literally; he claims that the only way to read the Bible is his and his only. This is not the proper way to read the Bible. While many things in the Bible are meant to be taken literally, there are things that need to be looked at in context.

He continues by using the same "ad nauseam" logical fallacy that he used all the way back in round two. This is the type of faulty thinking that involves continuous repetition of a claim with the goal that its value will somehow change, or I will finally be convinced. He has said over and over again that God has killed people for no reason. I showed him several examples that clearly indicated this was not true. My opponent does not seem to understand that consequences follow choices people make, good or bad. To answer his question, "what do these verses prove? ", they show that people who make bad choices receive consequences. And yes, some of them had to be extreme.

For my opponent's information, Christianity is not dwindling or failing. It is spreading dramatically throughout the world, according to "The Washington Post". So, his "attack" on me (yet another logical fallacy of his) did not work. He then proceeds to ask me how and why I proved him wrong. Here is his answer: I have read the Bible all the way through (almost, I'm nearly done) and have seen how the verses apply to the story in which they were used. Based on what I've seen, my opponent has not looked at any references that I gave him. If he as truly read the Bible, he would understand why things like this happened. He doesn't have to agree with it, but to go out and harass Christians who have studied the Bible when he doesn't even understand what he is talking about is just not appropriate. It is really easy search in Google for verses where God killed people. I speculate this is what he did. I don't think it's a coincidence that he was able to list about 30 references of killings by skimming through the Bible itself. Link:

My opponent can think whatever he wants. If he thinks he won round III, I can't stop him from doing so. I will leave that up to the voters to decide. However, he makes another faulty assumption (what a surprise) that I do not understand child abuse. His only basis for this is the fact that I disagree with him and proved him wrong. I fully know what child abuse is.

After citing things I have said in previous rounds, he takes them completely out of the context that I wrote them in. Whoever is reading this right now can even go back and look. This is exactly what my opponent does when he reads the Bible. He tells me to prove to him that God loves everyone. I did that all the way back in round two. Either he didn't read them, or he did and just doesn't like the fact that they prove him wrong. I'll ask him again to go back to round two and READ the chapters and verses I gave him.

He asks me why I told him he takes things out of context many times, saying "How would I know?". I will tell him how I know, for the 100th time. BECAUSE I READ ENTIRE CHAPTERS INSTEAD OF SINGLING OUT VERSES THAT LOOK GOOD TO GO AGAINST GOD.

Continuing on, he goes on to try to prove ME wrong in my analysis (and failing). Why? He forgot one important part of the verse that he most likely didn't mention on purpose. I quote, "[...] and put away the abominable idols out of all the land [...]". My opponent should look at this closely. It shows, clearly, that there were idols in the land before this. People were worshiping them. This is far from innocence in the eyes of God. And he says I got proved wrong.

My opponent thinks he can say that he won round two, when he didn't read the sources I gave him, or take time to analyze them.

Regarding the "gays and more hate" section. Again, he doesn't seem to understand that there are consequences for poor choices. This is explaining homosexual activity; it has nothing to do with transgenderism. There were rules set in place that said that homosexuality was not allowed, and if the rules were broken, they would be punished. While several versions of the Bible word this passage differently, the message is the same. They commit a sin, they get punished.

The versions he has presented me with have not deviated from the original message. They just changed the wording. My opponent seems to think that this means they are wrong. This is just like saying two plus two is not the same as two added to two. While I read the King James Version, these other versions have not changed the original message.

My opponent goes on to say that nobody interprets the Bible correctly. I would like to ask him, if this is his claim, how he thinks he interprets the Bible correctly when evidence goes against him?

Jumping to conclusions in such a way as my opponent did in the comments is one of the worst things to do in a debate. He asserts, "if you as a christian were to see a gay person kissing another man and then see someone raping a 6 year old child, you'd call the police on the gay couple." I have no idea where this came from. Obviously the police would be called for the 6-year-old child, as they are the ones being harmed. Either way, this is another distraction he fabricates. The original premise was that God loves everyone, even gays. He does not provide evidence sufficient to prove this is not true. He only provides references that show consequences for sinful behavior.

After accusing me of telling lies, my opponent goes on to tell more lies in a single paragraph than I have seen in this debate yet. And he thinks I need to be dehumanized for telling "lies". First off, Christianity is NOT fading away, as I proved earlier. The assertion he makes that Christians teach hatred is not true. This is shown all over the world. Many organizations that help the poor, needy, and victims of natural disasters are Christian based. How can this be hatred? He says we should be spending our time doing loving things. Is this not sufficient to show you that you are wrong? According to my opponent, reaching out to help people in hard times is nothing but hatred and stupidity. I hope this isn't how he reacts to family members when they need extreme help.

In conclusion, I have showed my opponent several examples of how God is a very kind and loving person. I have proved him wrong in his assumptions from the verses he has taken from the Bible (which, need I say again? out of context). I have given him examples of how Christians are loving people, while he has offered no examples of how Christians show hate. I have identified several ways he uses faulty arguments and unproductively attacks me instead of my arguments.

I look forward to hearing what my opponent has to say regarding this.
Debate Round No. 4


Where do you get your interpretations from? Do you make things up as you go? Obviously.

Sorry. I didn’t take Deuteronomy 13 out of context at all because you do not know how to interpret properly.
“These chapters he cites show time and time again that wickedness of people led to their deaths, not God wanting to kill for pleasure.” So you agree that wanting to worship other god’s is worthy of massive hatred geared towards someone is worthy of death? And that wickedness is what class? Hate and evil. Thus there could have been peaceful solutions coming from your supreme deity who supposedly knows everything and obviously prefers that hate and evil.
Regardless, 9-10 and you are ordered to come on down here and murder me since I don’t worship your god and am attempting to steer you away from him. So you are not going to do it. So then that means that you disobey your god’s laws, rules and regulations. Way to go! Keep up the good Italian work nut job that those verses, just like a lot of your bible cannot possibly be followed.

“They were in great crime and wickedness, as it states that they were worshiping idols instead of the Lord.” Ooooo ouch. Children and babies were worshiping idols instead of the lord? Would you like to try and invent better excuses please rather than mumbling from your butt? Oh and btw, it NOT a crime. Raping a 6 year old girl IS a crime. And if you think worshiping false idols is a crime, well strange? people worship false gods and death does not take place now, now does it? Why not? Its because your god does not exist.

Oh and btw, I’m ending this crap that your god loves everyone because he most certainly does not especially with those that worship false idols who he truly hates you total fricken moron and imbecile who doesn’t know a damn thing about his bible and god. Who cares what you say or believe. ITS WRONG.

What’s really pathetic in god’s crime list well the 10 commandments. 4 of them are dedicated to his overblown bloated superior ego complex which is really selfish. And there’s nothing towards children. Nada. There really needs to be at least one like “thou shalt always protect children and do unto them no harm” or something like that. But nah. Your god is more concerned with false egotistical self.

Then “thou shalt not kill” What a stupid idiot you are. There are many instances in your bible where your god did the murdering and or killing and then there are many instances where he hired his henchmen to do it for him. Duh.
So its a major contradiction that your god can kill and man cannot. Its one of thousands of contradictions in your bible that god makes and man cannot. So indeed your god is a horrid role model and thus cannot be followed. Um no its "thou shalt kill" especially with at least a billion dead in your supposed "good" name of god.

* “He has the right to deal with us in any way he sees fit.” OK let’s suppose that that is true? (tee hee) then all the genocides, the massive killings, the wars, the hatred especially towards children according to you, is completely justified. OK so then again wow what a truly great role model this god guy of yours is.
* Well well well well. What a mighty idiot machine this planet has become because it has followed your god’s every whim. Hey its happening now because of what is in print in the bible with all of its violence, hate, greed, wars, needless death, bloodshed, etc etc etc etc as daddy goes around and shoots up his family and rapes his wife and children which is perfectly legal according to your bible.

* So your reasoning is absolutely 100% totally incorrect. So then if this god of yours, who is invisible and has never not once in the history of his supposed existence, has EVER been proven, if he were to tell you to jump into a fiery volcano, you would do it? By fluffy lard butt, I bet you would for absolutely no reason at all just because this god of yours said so. I also bet that if this god of yours, who there is absolutely no evidence for having ever existing, and not ever having been witnessed making ---any--- physical appearances whatsoever, not one since your bible has been scribed and this voice in your head, and you THINK (because that’s all your rub a dub dub dub toxic chow meal time brain can do) a noise in your brain were to tell you to shoot up your entire family and town, you would do it? I bet you would. Right good ole Charlie Brownie?
* “So to say that I have an obligation…” Um no you have no obligation to anyone except for yourself, friends and loved ones. Period. But then again, I know damned well that you don’t have any genuine friends or loved ones.
* Pay attention to The Atheist Experience from Sunday as I asked you to and naturally you didn’t. This IS you… 1:11:00 All this phone call is, is common sense with a lot of good old fashioned reasoning.

* “My opponent then attempts to define all the killings done by God as "genocide".” WRONG. You are so miserable at reading people. Tell yah what, let’s go and play some poker. I will take all of your $$$ before you would even sit down to the game. Totally false toxic rump dump stump milk shake as usual. There are many killings in the bible where god kills individuals or groups of people which is not a genocide by any means. But then again my opponent does not know this thus he does not know his bible as he claims.
* “While I can see how he may feel this way, he seems to forget God's thoughts in the whole thing.” And there my opponent goes off the charts into his own made up transsexual la la land ah yes, my opponent, well actually, my thing seems to think that he somehow know god better than he knows himself and seems to think he knows god’s innermost thoughts and seems to know what god was thinking at the time.
* “Genocide, as he has stated, is "100% pure hate and evil". God, however, as I established earlier, loves everyone.” My opponent hasn't established anything. His god does not love everyone. He’s flat out wrong and has been proven as such as always. I mean its like comparing an atom, that being you to the big bang, that being me.
“But these deaths were NEVER done from hate.” Really? According to what imbecile? How would he know?What grade of god classroom preschool grade F has he passed to make such a stupid observation that absolutely nobody of merit will agree with? Oh yes they were they were absolutely done from hate and nothing but. Genocides are nothing but hate. Invent better excuses please rather than making things up as you go it alone and along. Really? How and where do you get your interpretations from because absolutely NO ONE will agree with you. I’ve been doing this for 40 years and talked with about 25,000 and no one has ever stated something so laughingly stupid and ignorant. A genocide is NEVER out of love.
* Oh then OK so according to your beefed and obvious and blatant made up rules to cover up for your god’s knowing miss-steaks and mudpie arrogance and lack there of humanity and integrity, and fuzz ball weenie tots at the local Easter Parade, you by your own rules and regulations you consider what Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hong Xiuquan, Hitler, all serial killers, all rapists, all torturers, all sodomizers, all those that murder their families, all those that go on murder rampages etc etc etc . by your rules and how you see god and his “loving” genocides, then you consider what those in the list as “loving” have done also. Indeed, you like your god has no morality.
We’re done. Bye.

* I easily win this debate because my opponent praises the death of innocent children.
* My opponent failed to address children at all as all christians do. Children have names. They deserve to be heard and not swept under the rug as my opponent did and as nearly 100% of all christians do.
* It was very easily proven that god truly hates children with sickening verse after verse after verse. That’s why my opponent does not talk about them. Children to him are volit specks, just like they are to his god, and are at the lowest of low.
* According to the bible, children went through horrific sufferings, pain and tortures. My opponent neatly ignored what children go through in his bible. It is the children that matter and not his god and not his clearly misinterpreted ideals that he pulled from a hat.
* My opponent comes off as of he knows god better than god knows himself as proved in this round. Oh really? That’s a good one for in which my opponent really need to try harder.
* Here’s a clincher: My opponent clearly has no genuine friends or loved ones. What do I mean by genuine? Those that would go way way wayyyyyyyy out of their way to help him in time of dire need and never ask him a single question. For that I cannot even pity him. But he deserves it and he did it to himself.

Again if god is a god he wouldn’t need all this hate and genocides at all when peaceful solutions could have easily been dreamed up and thus reached. Nah. god loves hate and evil and thrives in hate, evil, needless death, war, violence, anger, wrath, bloodshed, greed, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy… Jealousy? What? From a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And even worse is this god of yours neatly passed down all those emotions down to man so in turn man could learn to hate with at least 1 billion dead on the battlefields alone all in the supposed “good” name of your god. And what for? I’ll tell you what for: Your god loves hate, evil, war, needless death… etc etc etc and he loves it because after all if there was peace, he’d be out of a job. No one to save, no one would worship him anymore, no greed, no wars, no violence, no evil, no hate etc etc etc. Everybody would be good and happy. No destruction. Things would be nice. Your god would be bored to tears. So peace is absolutely 100% out of the question.


I will being the final argument of this debate by telling my opponent that I do not in any way make things up. It clearly appears that this is what HE is doing. He claims that he didn't take one of his references out of context, but it is clear that he did. Worship of other gods in the sight of God is a sin. It is worthy of punishment to him. It is not worthy of hatred and evil. Those are two completely different things. Punishment does not imply hatred. He goes on to tell a complete lie that we are obligated to go out and kill atheists. The instructions God gave in that chapter only applied to Moses' people at that time. God has clearly told us today through the Ten Commandments that we should not kill anyone. So by not killing my opponent, I'm actually obeying God's laws.

My opponent then tries to apply his own ideas of laws to the Bible, which is another form of faulty thinking. He claims that worshiping idols in biblical times is not a crime just because he feels that way. This is not how it worked. It was a sin in the sight of God. I would agree with him when he says rape is a crime. However, this has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. This qualifies as another distraction he tries to throw at me. He uses another logical fallacy by assuming that since we don't see people dying today from worshiping false gods, God does not exist. I don't know why he chooses not to do this today, that's his business. God works in mysterious ways. But my opponent thinks that just because he doesn't understand it means that it's not true.

Here comes that "ad nauseam" fallacy again. He just keeps repeating that God hates everyone, expecting that it will be proven through repetition. The only evidence he has offered were references that showed God punishing people. As I have said many times, punishment does not imply hate. Just because God punishes people doesn't mean he hates them. This is just like saying, "My parents are evil and hateful towards me because they punish me".

I will now reply to his thoughts on the Ten Commandments. He calls it a "crime list". Some of these commandments include, "Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not kill; honor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God commanded thee, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee". My opponent says these instructions are "crimes". So, killing, committing adultery and stealing are not crimes to him. Those are some disgusting thoughts in my opinion. Also, they do in fact include children as a part of these commandments. God instructs children to obey their parents, and if they do, they will be rewarded with a good, long life. I guess my opponent thinks that obeying your parents is a crime too. He then goes on to say that this contradicts God's actions. This is an understandable way to look at it. However, he fails to recognize that this was within God's right to do so. Just because he has killed people does not in any way mean that he took pleasure in it. My opponent just assumes that he enjoyed it because he did it so much. There is no evidence of this in the Bible. He then goes on to say that I feel all of these killings were justified. He is correct. If the people in question would have repented or posed no threat to God's people, he would not have killed them.

I love this part. My opponent asks me, "If God told me to jump in a fiery volcano, would I do it?" Yes! I have not been wicked, so he wouldn't kill me. He would save me. My opponent then tries to distract me again (what a surprise) by telling me that God doesn't exist. While I disagree with him extremely on this topic, this is not what we are debating about. I cannot force him to believe that God exists, that's his business.

Not surprisingly, he then takes some of my words out of context AGAIN (it's funny how many times he has done this, and denies it). I was responding to his belief that I had an obligation to go kill him. My words were, "So to say that I have an obligation to murder my opponent is absurd, as this is not anywhere near what God wants us to do." He tried to make it seem like I was talking about my family. Wrong again.

I did look at the link you sent, and it did absolutely nothing for me. I still firmly believe in God, and you can never change that. But this debate is not about whether or not God exists. We are debating on whether or not he is is hateful and evil.

I never said once that my opponent was wrong in calling it "genocide", that's just the way he sees it. I would not consider it that. I don't understand why my opponent makes the claim that I know God better than he knows himself. That is far from the truth, as I never said that. He then goes on to claim that I haven't established anything regarding God's love for everyone. I cited references where God explicitly stated himself, but my opponent denies this. The only way he attempted at proving me wrong was repeating himself over and over again. He offered no evidence supporting his assertions that HATE was a main component, he just assumed that because it involved extreme punishments. This is just like saying (and I'll use the same analogy I have been using throughout this debate) that your parents punish you because they hate you. This is false.

Really? No one will agree with me? The millions of Christians around the world who hold the same beliefs I do would not agree with me? That just a bunch of crap. "A genocide is NEVER out of love". So then, my opponent really has no reason to call these killings "genocides".

Now he goes on to make faulty connections to cruel dictators throughout history who have murdered many people. He claims that based on my reasoning, that these people would be considered "loving". This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard yet. Many of these people, such as Hitler, explicitly stated that they hated the people they murdered. Hitler flaunted his antisemitism everywhere. THESE were the kinds of things done out of hate. However, it is different with God. He has never come out and said that he hates people, because he doesn't. It's that simple. He HAS said many times that he LOVES everyone. Therefore, this connection my opponent attempts to make is invalid.

I will now refute my opponent's summary of this debate.
*He claims that I praise the death of children. This is a complete lie. I never said this nor implied it anywhere in the debate.
*He claims that I failed to address children in the debate, which is yet another lie. I gave him references where God explicitly stated that he loved children.
*He claims that it is easy to prove God hates children. According to what I have shown, the reverse is true. By looking at verses in their context, it becomes clear hate was not involved. It is easy to prove God LOVES children.
*He uses a straw man argument in saying that children matter. Well, of course they matter. That's not the point though.
*He claims that I think I know more about God than he knows about himself. This is absolute bogus. I never said this or implied anything like it.
*He throws a red herring fallacy in his summary by saying that I have no friends or loved ones. The only basis he has is that I disagree with him. This does not prove anything about my personal life, nor relationships with others. Clearly I have many friends and loved ones. This is mainly because I don't go out of my way to harass people like my opponent does.
*He continues to say that peaceful solutions could have been found in these situations. This was God's original intention. Do to the people's actions, they brought that punishment on themselves.

I will now draw this debate to a close. I will explain reasons why I feel my opponent has not won the debate, and reasons why I feel I have won the debate.

Reasons why I feel my opponent has not won the debate:
*He showed a significant lack of respect for opposing opinions.
*He spent half of this debate trying to insult me rather than supporting his arguments further.
*He used many faulty arguments to try to advance his position.
*He did not take any time to look at context of verses cited. He just took them at face value. This caused a lot of his faulty reasoning and pure lies.
*He drove his arguments mainly by emotion rather than reason.
*He repeated his arguments over and over in hopes that it would prove his point.
*He did not offer sufficient evidence to prove his point.
*He made many efforts to distract me from debating the prompt in question.

Reasons why I feel I have won the debate:
*I did not harass him once.
*I had the best conduct.
*I did my best to make sure most of my arguments were not faulty and based off of reasoning.
*I have identified several ways my opponent used faulty arguments.
*I read the references he provided IN CONTEXT, identifying how they disproved his point rather than supporting it.
*I had the best spelling and grammar.
*I identified his attempts to use others' opinions as evidence.
*I broke his arguments down, analyzed them, and refuted them with evidence, logic, and reason, while he did not. Rather, he refuted mine with insults and emotion rather than logic.

In conclusion, my opponent's attempts at proving God is a hateful and evil person failed. He never look at the verses in context, while I did, and refuted his arguments with logic. There are a myriad of examples and evidence that show God is a very kind and loving person. Therefore, the thought of removing him from power is sickening, and should be given no more thought.

I have a request for the voters:
Please be sure to read this entire debate, as skimming it may not help you make a decision. Please take time to look at my reasons for who should be the winner, and have a great day.

God Bless!!!
Debate Round No. 5
90 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 71 through 80 records.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 3 years ago
backwardsen, are you a sociopath or something? I mean, cmon, at least try to make athiests look good by behaving with proper conduct. I do believe that some of the things God does in the bible are bad, but not that everything is corruption. Some of the ideas presnted in the bible are actually good for humanity. Yet humanity is something this poor fellow doesn't undertsand, despite his supposedlly extensive college education.

Btw, dont give up on this supersawsomemusician, I know you can beat this chump!
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 3 years ago
I am not going to engage in any way with an organization that will try to turn me away from my beliefs. I have a constitutional right to hold the religious beliefs that I do, yet you don't seem to understand that. How about reading the 1st amendment?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Boy. Learn to read. K?

Now The Atheist Experience is on, on youtube right fricken now. And if you want to learn something I highly recommend it. It is a show that is on, every Sunday at 5:30est to 7:00est and they take phone calls from all over the world. This week they have 2 of the most intelligent and compassionate hosts that there are. You should give them a call because they take theists at the front of the line.
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 3 years ago
Dude, just because I disagree with you, you are calling me stupid. I can be as proud of myself in my musical accomplishments as I want, as I actually try to be good at it.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Nothing in this univers has" power".. If "Power" is to change anything..
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
canis --- "If knowledge is power, and power corrupts, how will we survive?" Now name who stated that?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Nothing in this univers has" power".. If "Power" is to change anything..
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
So sure we could probably talk on musical terms. There"s a whole pouthouse of bands and artists I"ve listed. Some you may have heard. Most probably not. Some I 100% guarantee you will HATE!!!!!!!!!!!! Some you may love. But I really don"t like bands and artists that are generally big except for a very select few.
Now you don"t know me. I have 4 friends I"ve know for 39+ years. 1 for 17+ years and 1 for 16+ years.

Now if you have such a high GPA then THINK!!!!!!!
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Nothing in this univers has" power".. If "Power" is to change anything..
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
I do have an edumacation when it come to you my dear aphid sap gone sour in a jello mold. Especially on music, film, religion, god and the bible. Oh but wait my nuclear furnace at brunch time, oh gee, you called me names also, but may I pinch your little grandma"s cheeks so that they turn a wittle bit wedder? Awe he doesn"t wike it so much when the tables are turned on the big big big dinner that the aardvarks must have had while they were on board the ark when they only had 2 ants to eat.
Um no dildo desire, you show me intelligence, I show you intelligence. Thus far you completely lack in that category on the subject that you claim to having knowledge upon, religion, in which you most certainly don"t, just like nearly every christian schmuck who thinks they know god better than he knows himself. That"s because you do not read your bible. And wow did it show today with stunning clarity and brilliance. You do realize that you are not that bright, nor should you ---ever--- try to pretend that you are?
Sheesh are you REALLY THAT pathetic? I changed the subject. Wow. Imagine that. I put you on the spot with your name and you throw a hiffy fit. Wow. 2 musical instruments. When I was your age. I played 5. Granted I could not get good at them because of the way my fingers moved. But when I was 14 I played in stage band playing Count Basie and our alto sax player completely transposed the Pink Panther theme for all 17 of us to play. What an astonishing feat. He now heads the orchestra at one of the vegas strip casinos though I am not sure which one. As far as me, I"ve heard an easy 100,000 bands and artists and I love to absolutely compose. Its a lot of fun. I"ve composed 166 songs thus far to my credit and continuing. Yes, in as many genres as I can. It keeps me going. So in other words, don"t be too proud of yourself. I"m not proud of myself at all. Since I"m not I can be critical of myself and it keeps me going.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by princearchitect 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate goes to Con because I have never seen such vile, egotistical and hateful behavior on this site that I see in Pro. All I see is Pro's evident hypocritical behavior because the same evil, hateful ways, and behaviors he is accusing God of is the same evil hateful ways, and behaviors his publicly displaying in every single one of his debates.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
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 displayed poor conduct by calling Con "roach meat" in round two.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some of the worst conduct I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It was nothing but preening, boasting, and making the most pathetic and vicious personal attacks in this website's history. Con, somehow, remained a good sport and attempted to debate maturely and competently. I found no major problems with Con's grammar, whereas Pro gets points deducted for such amusing expressions as "goo goo ga ga child". The only source really utilized was the Bible, but I will give Con the points for actually explaining the context and not yanking individual quotes out of oblivion, as Pro did. As for the arguments themselves, neither is spectacular. Con says God is justified in killing "wicked" people, though he doesn't explain why worshiping idols calls for a death penalty. Pro ignores any reference to God's love and doesn't go into much depth aside from dishing out evil-sounding verses. That aside, Con deserves a win for putting up with Pro's sickening conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.