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

god is categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil and is filled with hate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,024 times Debate No: 103343
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




The god of the bible has freely admitted that he is evil on numerous occasions, so why should anybody believe in him? Actually the better question is, is why would anybody "want" to believe in him? The question is yours to answer if you wish.

In this debate it will be proved that god according to the bible has freely admitted that he is evil, so then the question remains for you to answer is why should you stoop so low and believe in this evil? But it goes much further than mere evil. The bible clearly, without question shows that the bible presents god as pure hate also with his countless ruthless genocides, wars, bloodshed, needless deaths, needless violence, greed, etc etc etc and here's a list of what he's freely admitted to having... evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy. Jealousy? I mean come on here. Jealousy from a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. Then this supreme deity neatly passed down all those emotions so man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going you for believing in this trash.
god could have easily brought in an era of peace, kindness, love, care for each other etc etc etc rather than all that crap. But nah he chose the other B.S. which proves that he is not worth worshiping and is required to be ousted from power. The sooner the better because he doesn't care about peace or love and never has and never will.
Now since this god guy character has all of these dreaded emotions of hate and evil... it means that he is imperfect. So there's still more problems in believing in this supreme deity. Why believe, bow down to, worship and or idolize a supreme deity that is imperfect?

So your job in this cow dung moo juice robe debate is to prove that the god according to the bible is ---not--- flawlessly evil and give the reason(s) why this is true. It would help if you are well versed in the bible and christianity instead of inventing excuses as nearly all christians do. Because if not, I will destroy you.

Now here are some verses in the bible where god has freely admitted that he is evil.
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

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. ( [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!

1KI 22: 22-23 “And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.”

2 Chronicles 18:22,”Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.”

Lamentations 3:38 “Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?”

Jeremiah 18:11 “Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”

Jeremiah 19:3 “And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.”

Jeremiah 19:15 “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.”

Jeremiah 23:12 “Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery ways in the darkness: they shall be driven on, and fall therein: for I will bring evil upon them, even the year of their visitation, saith the LORD.”

Amos 3:6 “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Deuteronomy 30: 15 “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;"

2 Kings 22:16 "Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:"

2 Kings 22:20 "Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place.

JU 9:23 “Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:”

Follow up...
I do hope that my opponent is intelligent and educated on god, religion and the bible so that this debate will be a good one and not one to be chucked into the trash!


First I want to thank my opponent for posting this challenge and for being very helpful in the personal messages in outlining the format we are to argue this topic. I am aware of some computer mishap and that this topic may/may not be viewable and this whole thing, quite possibly, may have to be "done over again" to count towards the statistics. This is being used as a TEST to see which is the proper debate page we agreed to.

Nevertheless I will pursue on!

I Accept the Con in the topic: "God is categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil and is filled with hate."

After reading through and formatting my case I would like to take this initial opportunity for Round 1 to: Accept and define key words that will be critical to the result. Definitions will be directly taken from Merriam-Webster"s website ( If definitions are not accepted, please make a claim in the response with the amendments plus citations.

*Definitions used are chosen by relevance to the context of the topic
"God " 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
oa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
ob Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
"Evil - 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked an evil impulse
ob : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct a person of evil reputation
"Categorically " "1: absolute, unqualified a categorical denial
o2a : of, relating to, or constituting a category
ob : involving, according with, or considered with respect to specific categories
"Unconditionally " "1: not conditional or limited : absolute, unqualified unconditional surrender unconditional love
"Undeniable " " 1: plainly true : incontestable an undeniable fact
o2: unquestionably excellent or genuine an applicant with undeniable references
"Flawless " "1a : a defect in physical structure or form a diamond with a flaw
ob : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness; vanity was the flaw in his character
"Believe " "1a : to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact Do you believe? "usually used with in believe in the Scriptures
ob : to accept something as true, genuine, or real
"Pure " "3a (1) : free from what vitiates, weakens, or pollutes (2) : containing nothing that does not properly belong"
"Worship " "2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
o3: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
Debate Round No. 1


Well hopefully through emailings everything has been straightened out so hopefully this debate will be able to move forward. Hopefully it will be an intelligent and educated debate from your standpoint because it is very rare that it happens from a christian perspective rather than having someone who pretends that they know what they are talking about and they thus have to invent excuses and flat out lie for something in which they clearly know nothing about rather than saying those terrorist words about christianity of “I don’t know”.
So I see that all you did for round 1 was come up with some definitions. Good. I’m glad you did because I will take it “one giant leap for man” beyond that. Naturally I will give my peace of mud for what you have come up with first. Then you can counter whatever you question or do not feel comfortable with. Ready?

"God " 1 capitalized… Obviously and absolutely not, not ever. That would mean that this unproved god would have earned, deserved and would have had to be respected. Now how can a god who is unproved and hates children according to a text, deserves respect? So no, that capital “G” remains a lowercase “g” at all times.

“the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
oa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness”... What goodness is there is hating children? Causing massive suffering especially to children, loving raped women, loving war, needless death, bloodshed, creating countless deliberate genocides, having emotions like anger, wrath, 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 those emotions to man so in turn man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going for those who believe in him. No only that but since this god/ supreme deity has these emotions it clearly proves that he is imperfect thus proving that he is not a god/ supreme deity but has the same faults as us lowly humans. So how can this supposed god who is not a god
**** “who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe”? I think not.

Moving on…”ob Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind” Well you’ve just named Gaia Mother Earth who is far older, billions of years btw, whereas christianity is 6,000 tops, according to scholars. Ken Ham and his ridiculous losing ark joke as a prime example. And there are hundreds if not thousands of other religions that believe in the same thing that wee far earlier such as the aborigines. Buddhists and Hindu’s believe in the same thing. Oh and since when is that what christians believe? It may be what christian science is, but that’s not christianity. .

"Evil, Categorically, Unconditionally "1: not conditional or limited : absolute, we’ll skip the “unqualified unconditional surrender unconditional love” because there’s no demonstrations of that by god except for hate and evil. "Undeniable " " Here’s what says 1.incapable of being denied or disputed: undeniable evidence of arson.2.not open to refusal: an undeniable call for help. (oh boy does that appeal to god and SCREAMS of it) so o2 doesn’t apply here because it doesn’t fit with god. God is not “unquestionably excellent or genuine an applicant with undeniable references” not by any means.
Flawless: 1. having no defects or faults, especially none that diminish the value of something: a flawless Ming Dynasty vase.In other words… god was/ is flawlessly evil.

“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 and he’s right

OK and now we get into "Believe " worship****... That’s “religion” and “faith”
Here’s the Definition of Religion followed by the definition of Faith. Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (notice how the definition used the word "beliefs") 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: (same thing) 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: (same thing) 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. (same thing but this time the definition uses the word "faith") Faith 2. belief that is not based on proof: (well duh) And then the World English Dictionary definition of faith is 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence (well duh and double duh) 4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason. So yep. That's what religion is and that's especially true of what faith is.

Everything god is, is based on religion (a set of beliefs) and faith. And faith can not be proved. Faith is something that is pulled from air. Its like pouring gasoline all over yourself and then running into a burning collapsing building. Why do you think creationists will not put god on trial again? Its because they 100% know they will lose. There's nothing at all they can prove as everything they have is faith based oriented. Faith lacks common sense, thinking, rationalizing, logic, and reason as religion, the bible and god requires none. But it does require your utmost obedience. And you hand it over like a wet moldy sock that you have for a brain if you believe in god through absolute gullibility as there’s nothing tangible. There’s no evidence for god, certainly nothing scientific in the bible. There’s no test to prove god. Even the very definition of faith is self defeating. Faith 2. belief that is not based on proof: (well duh) And then the World English Dictionary definition of faith is 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence (well duh and double duh) 4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason. So yep. That's what religion is and that's especially true of what faith is.
Now do you really think that a “god”/ supreme deity would be stupid enough to communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible, so man could get it wrong over at least 2,000 years with no updates and copies and copies and copies in which none of them lead back to the original source? So how is it that you or anyone is interpreting correctly?
And the best part is… do you really think that a god/ supreme deity would instill faith when this god is supposed to be omnipotent? So if that is true, this god would not require text (any books or bible’s), faith, when this god/could simply talk to us? This god did do just that according to his corrupted bible even though he did corrupt a few of his prophets, so regardless even when this god guy is supposed to be talking to us, how are we to be sure its this supreme eminence? And not something that is fake? Its all very confusing. Probably as confusing as your god wants it, in which there’s no proof for this god having ever existed in the first place. It is only the belief in this god that creates all this chaos and panic.

Man can and does just fine without god. god can not do without man. god can only exist through man feeding him his faith. Everybody has seen bad men prosper without god. Everybody has seen good men that do not prosper without god.


Critical Fact of the Debate " the "God" described in the bible.

In man"s pursuit of absolute knowledge and control we often see major intersections of conflict when the attempt to quantify one of man"s most primal concepts " "Who/What/How/Why/When is this?" Even after our countless years of evolution and understanding we have yet to begin to understand the realm of existence. Though the dialect and language of mankind changes through time, there are also constants that remain for "life" to experience just as the life before this life could experience. When an important experience or thought impact the reality of a living human there are gestures and information passed on to the next generation to better the probabilities of survival. Even with modern man not being any closer than primitive man in understanding existence, we have created symbols and sounds to continually grow on what was learned to better understand and answer our ineffable question. What was created was a concept of a being(s) that constructed everything that is anything. The sound we use to identify our current popular opinion on this topic is "God."
In the here and now we are exposed to a reality in which this concept has been tailored to justify authoritative interpretations of a collection of stories which describe the purpose and function of man. Along with answering and explaining deep questions that compel man to be curious about, this "guideline of behaviors" has been understood to be approved from the very same Creator and is treated as some form of "divine legislation" for all those who claim to subscribe to this belief. Through our institutions we created an "autonomous-esque" structure in handling this distribution of information to other people. For our most recent understanding we have created a concept of a singular being that is solely responsible for everything and at all times knows everything while being everywhere at the same time ("omnipresent", "omnipotent", etc") After the council of Niacine we have stopped adding to the collection of stories/teachings and have used only this final draft as the absolute explanation on this topic and have now come to call this book the "bible."
Pro"s R1 Argument
My opponent is claiming that this being described in this book can only be interpreted as an energy that only operates on two settings: Evil and Hate (Topic).
The first question my opponent proposes in this Rd. 1 argument is "why should anyone believe in him?" (Q1) Further along the question is rephrased to, ""why would anyone want to believe in him?" (Q2) As I read further a third question is asked, "why stoop so low to believe in this evil?" (Q3) With a fourth question after his argument stating, "why stoop so low to believe in this evil? (Q4)
Pro"s conclusion and secondary challenge to this topic is, "prove God is not flawlessly evil and give reasons why this is true." (Job) While stating as (Arg1) that, "without question"God as pure hate with his countless genocides, wars, bloodshed, needless deaths, needless violence, greed"admit to having"Jealously"is disguised as fear"so man could learn to hate." Pro"s (Arg2) reads, "God could have easily brought in an era of peace, kindness, love, care for each other"he chose other BS which proves he"s not worth worshipping and required to be ousted from power." The evidence (Evd) used by Pro are 13 verses taken from the bible.
Con"s Case R1
The identity of this being that is the central focus of this debate is understood to be named "God." This God is introduced and described to be the absolute creator of EVERYTHING. Let this sink in"e v e r y t h I n g. Before any personal/prophetic accounts are talked about in the bible, the infinite "is" that we call God is populating the "nothing" into "something." The steps that are said to be the information in which life became life are that God: creates the heavens and the earth in six days, starting with light on the first day and ending with mankind on the sixth (creating man and woman independently and at the same time), then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh. Days 2-5 are used to create everything else in between. This is critical to remember when attempting to describe the bible"s God " this being is literally the everything of everything
The missing items that elude Pro from holding a valid stance are that of additional concepts which must be included into the context of claiming God as a type of entity. First is "relative perception." Man is only able to understand through the interpretation of Man. With this said, it can only be assured that any interpretation of a concept created by Man is limited to the maximum potential of Man. God is a being that is infinitely greater than Man can ever be. The God in the bible is described (through allegory, metaphors and similes) as the absolute "King" to Man as well as Man"s "Father" all while being particularly focused that Man occupies his time in existence by serving, worshipping, and loving God. Everything that Man is capable of understanding about God only exists within the boundaries of Man"s relation to "God"s authority."
Second is that of the principles of Duality and the Trinity. The moral concept of "good" and "evil" can only exist if they both exist. Without one there cannot be the other. This mutual relationship exists because these are polar concepts. It is equal to the head and tail of a coin, crest and trough of a wave, inhale and exhale of be a breath, and so forth. I mention the Trinity because the bible specifically describes the triune relationship of the Nature of God being a: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
My central argument is: It is impossible to categorize God, or the Nature of God, by the interactions God has with human life on earth. God is not a servant to Man nor is God limited to only existing for Man. To only consider a small handful amount of interactions God has with Man (according to the Bible) as the complete analysis of God"s identity wouldn"t even measure to .00000000000001 x 10^-999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of God"s overall "work to be judged" by. To claim God as anything within Man"s symbol/language system would be like drinking the ocean with a fork one sip at a time.
R1 Rebuttal
The God described in the bible is NOT evil and filled with hate. Nor can God be interpreted through the texts of the bible as ONLY evil and FILLED with hate. God is not "categorically" evil due to the limit of anything Man can "categorized" by his symbols and language " both are surpassed by God so an accurate category to place God cannot exist. God is also not unconditionally evil and filled with hate simply by understanding that there are massively more expansive writings in the bible speaking to the glory, love, and mercy of God. It is also inaccurate of Pro to say that God is only evil and has no room for anything other than hate as undeniable " I am denying it at this moment, and there exists no book in the bible dedicated to the denouncement of God and exposure to a complete lesson in which the moral takeaway is interpreted as "God hates you." It is the exact opposite. Pro is naively set on defining God and his nature through the lenses of an adversary " The bible doesn"t position itself to question "which side of humanity is God on?" but rather, "which side of God are you on, as a human?" Nothing in the Bible poses Man being the measuring stick of God"s will " Man is the one who is challenged to choose a side.
Pro uses exaggerations and an incomplete spectrum of judgement when accusing God to be the: reason for war. War is organized extreme violence that is created and carried out 100% Man " 0% God. If God is to be seriously taken as responsible for war then this logic demands that you ignore every technological military advancement, thus we find ourselves with drones being the ultimate war machine being created and operated by God. You must abandon politics, nationalism, natural resources, money, conquest complexes, royal family dynasties and animalistic territorial instincts having any involvement in any war. For the clich" "as long as there has been 1 God there has been killing in his name" I would comment that God gave Man free will. Straight up " Man chooses and God observes, catalogues, and will place a judgement upon you as justice for your actions. God isn"t manufacturing weapons, organizing armies, stockpiling munitions, studying military science, developing advanced warfare technology any more than he is influencing AI algorithms to manipulate computers to operate and continue to carry out war. Would you say God is building predator drones"?
Needless deaths is too narrow and ignorant of an assessment of God"s purpose for every person who has died. Also it negates any interpretation that any person who died early may have already fulfilled their purpose and "earned their way out early." Who is Man to place judgement on an being that is an absolute creator and has a plan for everything that his plan is "wrong"? Are we ignoring the truth behind Man"s responsibility with all true "needless deaths""? Does the sting of knowing the world is suffering and soo many innocent people are being subject to the most horrific realities and departures"and it all could change if PEOPLE made different decisions? That we, as people on the earth, have the capability and full responsibility to bring peace/love/harmony to this world? That the only thing that has to happen is a few people that make decisions for many people to make different decisions"? Man can solve world hunger today " is God preventing us? Man can cure diseases for good " is God responsible for the medical/pharmaceutical industry and medical practices to "treat" rather than "cure" for routine visits and longer prescription periods written? Is God responsible for mass rapes, or are the people responsible for their actions? To categorize death as "needless" is assuming Man would have made a better decision if they were in charge.
As far as the emotions attached to the identity Pro claims of God, I ask that we keep in mind how the Bible was written. God did not write 1 word of the bible, nor did God have anything to do with the creation, usage of the bible. The men who claim to interpret the nature and will of God I ask we refer to the relative perception argument. To attach human emotions in the telling of God is for people to relate as closely to the writer"s emotional interpretation of the event. Emotions are caused from chemical reactions through glandular secretions in the anatomical structure of organic life. God in the bible is never said to be a human " never. Thus "emotions" are not anatomically possible for God " it would be interpreted as God giving man the gift of emotions so he can feel, not the other way around.
I believe Pro is confused with the relationship of God to Man in suggesting God is some sort of authority figure who can removed from his position. The God of the bible is omnipresent and omnipotent " it is a paradox to remove him, let alone a massive delusion to think Man could implement something to remove God, or as Pro says, "ousts from power." For the argument that God could bring in peace, love, kindness, etc" I would comment that God has already provided those to Man. It is up to Man to use them. Refer to the free will argument from earlier. Do you honestly blame God for homeless people? People whose only meal comes from a soup kitchen? Did God put them there, or did Man"? For the statement about God bs"ing around I would like to refer back to the relative perception argument and also the paradox of Man"s judgement of God"s action.
Pro"s 4 questions boil down to this " Why worship God? My response is: Hope
The message of the bible is Love God " God Loves You. How the scripture is distorted for various agendas is a Man-thing, not God. The interpretation of God is a Man-thing, not a verified fact. The message claims rewards of your highest imagination and boundless love, all that is required is service. This structure isn"t a "divine creation" " it"s a Man-made institutional structure of authority and governance. Man told Man to bow and worship as the gesture to honor God. Man told Man to arrive on certain days and sacrifice certain things. Man also is arrogant enough to assume correct with interpretation of God and "his demands." If anything, the bible says God told Man to do 10 things " and not one of those 10 things can be categorically, undeniably evil and filled with hate. Man created the church " God told man to have a personal relationship with him and that a "church" isn"t a building, but just a gathering of worshippers. Man created organized religion, not God.
All verses provided by Pro come from the Old Testament. I argue dismissal of relevance to the core question on the basis that the bible describes God as a Trinity " and the Trinity is not revealed until the New Testament. To only provide Old Testament evidence for the only proof of God"s identity is incomplete by biblical standards. You cannot have a correct assessment of God if you do not include evidence from the New Testament. Without the Trinity you do not have the God of the Bible. These verses are out of context in creating the identity of God. Also the analogies used are moral symbols that adhere to the principle of Duality. Refer to that argument for this point as each account and description is meant for Man"s interpretation to pass the story on to Man. There is no evil without good to contrast/compare. If God is everything then he is no more evil than he is good.
I can"t prove any of this true " just as you can"t prove your argument as a verifiable fact. These are opinions and interpretations of concepts soo beyond Man"s potential that the answer as to why submit to God and worship in being: it brings Hope " and Hope is an immeasurably powerful GOOD thing. Worshipping God provides Hope. Thus, God gives Hope to his worshippers. Hope is not evil, so God is not "filled with hate." The people are suffering because of other people. The worship of God helps prolong survival-thinking when faced with the crazy challenges of reality. But there isn"t anything I can say to you for you to have an "answer beyond doubt with evidence and proof". It"s built on Faith " and by Faith you carry out your service. It all is a CHOICE with zero guarantees.

R3 Con will Rebuttal Pro R2 and R3 along with Final Closing end
Debate Round No. 2


“For our most recent understanding we have created a concept of a singular being that is solely responsible for everything and at all times knows everything while being everywhere at the same time ("omnipresent", "omnipotent", etc") “ Um no absolute 0 no “we” have not. And nearly 100% of this planet’s scientists of merit will totally disagree with that lopsided tongue slur which doesn’t reach the divine.
Yeah and that thing people call the “bible” well my opponent doesn’t get that not only is it filled with evil and hate as perfectly described by its christian god, but those who claim themselves to be christian, about 80% don’t even read the damn thing except for perhaps once every other week, and its only a few verses, if that. So they really cannot claim themselves to be christians in the first place.
Now if there is any doubt, the slightest doubt in anyone’s beliefs, then they are atheists.

“The identity of this being that is the central focus of this debate is understood to be named "God." This God is introduced and described to be the absolute creator of EVERYTHING. Let this sink in"e v e r y t h I n g.” Um no I am not going to do any such thing because you cannot even prove this god of yours exists. After all how can you prove the unproved? So before you and I can go on, every single time that you mention “we”, no its “you”. You do NOT put words into my mouth.

Of course I notice that you did not mention what lies between the “Days 2-5 are used to create everything else in between.” Because I don’t think you are stupid enough to mention how out of whack they truly are and how they didn’t happen at all as the bible mentions. No offense. So no its not “critical to remember when attempting to describe the bible"s God " this being is literally the everything of everything.” Now when are we going to get on with you proving that god is not evil?

Oh absolutely god is an entity speaking on your terms. But as a reminder, you still have to prove he exists.
“God is a being that is infinitely greater than Man can ever be. The God in the bible is described (through allegory, metaphors and similes) as the absolute "King" to Man as well as Man"s "Father" all while being particularly focused that Man occupies his time in existence by serving, worshiping, and loving God. Everything that Man is capable of understanding about God only exists within the boundaries of Man"s relation to "God"s authority."” Big deal. That does not impress me. Nor should it impress anyone. But then again you’d have to prove that one to millions, or perhaps even billions of christians who may disagree with you who try to communicate with god every day who see god differently than you. After all, god created man in his own image - correct? So that’s how millions and perhaps billions see this god of your and not how you just described him.
But then again none of that can possibly be true if this god of yours has HUMAN emotions as mentioned before in which he has freely admitted to such as anger, wrath, vengeance, rage fury, jealousy? Jealousy? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. And all of those emotions are imperfections. What moron wants to worship that bile? And even worse is this supposed god sent all of those emotions down to man so man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going man for worshiping this supposed trash.

Second is that of the principles of Duality and the Trinity. The moral concept of "good" and "evil" can only exist if they both exist. Without one there cannot be the other.” That is ab-so-lu-te-ly 100% false. Well your god came up with the “evil” bit especially when evil is NOT needed, its not a requirement, nor is it a necessity. But in god’s shady little world it most certainly is. Good can most certainly exist without evil. That’s a proven. Strange isn’t it that in comparison that the Inca, many of the native American Indian tribes until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out, the aborigines, Hindu’s, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists etc etc etc they do not practice nor preach nor go to war over their religions, not anywhere close to the evils nor hate that the christians do. Now why is that? And yet according to your god worshiping other gods is considered to be the most evil thing there is and you should be stoned to death for it. So you follow your lord’s orders and you come on down here and stone me to death. Whatsamatter? You are not going to follow your god’s orders? Why? Why not?

“My central argument is…” Um no you have no argument because you have to invent excuses and not knowing what you are talking about as nearly 100% of all christians do or they end up running to the jungles. :
“It is impossible to categorize God, or the Nature of God,” Well you finally got one right. Because how can you categorize the unknown and the unproven? You can’t. But then you get into your dance and excuses again and what does it have to do with god’s evil’s?
“God is not a servant to Man” oh absolutely he is by you feeding him your faith. Without you feeding this god of yours his faith, its simple, he dies. “nor is God limited to only existing for Man.” Then you explain why the entire bible, except for animal sacrifices which is truly sick and no supreme deity would ever apply, and genesis, is all geared towards man? “To only consider a small handful amount of interactions God has with Man (according to the Bible”... whaohhhh stop right there horsey. The bible is all you have and nothing else) as the complete analysis of God"s identity wouldn"t even measure to .00000000000001 x 10^-999999999999999999999999999999999999999% Now where did you get that invented excuse figure from? Tell yah what. I’m dropping this right now. I do not appreciate flat out lies from someone who truly has to invent excuses from something in which they clearly know absolutely nothing about but they pretend that they do. I truly hate people like that. And christians like you run rampant and sing “I pledge a grievance” or “My country p**ses on thee, sweet land of misery, of thee I scream” We’re done.


I had the understanding that this was going to be a debate. I have read over Pro"s R2 and R3 a few times and I am under the impression that Pro has completely deviated from the parameters of the debate Pro instigated. I say this because there is no structure to Pro"s case/argument/stance. I will attempt to decipher Pro"s response to my arguments and rebuttals, plus (and I am only doing this because I have a personal notation I want Pro to have a very clear understanding about) outline and argue Pro"s drastic points of deviation from this debate.
Two facts to be understood " and Pro, these are without refutation as YOU are the one who proposed this entire debate and its format.
1.Never is there any mention in your (Topic), (Q1-Q4), (Arg1&2), or even in your (Job) you place in bold and underlined text is there ANY mention of "proving God exists." It is a non-relevant issue in the parameters of this debate. Every single refutation Pro makes in defense of "God not being proved to exist" is invalid to this debate and should be dismissed in any voting decisions. Con is never challenged in this Instigation or Pro"s R1 ANYWHERE to "prove God exists" so I will not entertain this blatant misdirection and intentional deviation.
2.Pro, you Instigated this debate. You created the topic to be debated and even are responsible for your R1 challenge you posted. I will provide verbatim the first twenty words YOU posted for this debate to be accepted. These are your words and are the parameters of the debate"s core concept. "God is categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil and is filled with hate. The god of the bible has freely admitted"" I take the stance as Con and use the bible for evidence against your claim because YOU created the outline of the debate that you SPECIFICALLY state "the god of the bible" and it is your intention to prove "the god of the bible" is "categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil"" I am not a Christian, and you are an embarrassment to Atheists. You are filled with the same blind passion and you defend science as your religion.
Omissions and Acceptances
Pro has completed all 3 rounds of this debate and I would like to indicate key arguments that Pro avoided to refute, thus Pro has displayed and agreement with Con on these issues.

1.Pro agrees to Con"s argument of the (Topic) that God is NOT evil and filled with hate.
2.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Arg1) that Man, not God, is 100% responsible for all war, genocide, rape, mass violence. Also, Pro agrees under this argument that God does not have human emotions due to the anatomical differences and how emotions actually work.
3.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Arg2) that Pro misunderstands the structure of God to Man and that it is a paradox for Man to ousts God from power. Pro also agrees that God has equally given man love, peace, kindness as opposed to strictly things that can only be categorized as evil/hate.
4.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Q1-Q4) and also that the tangible/symbolic practices of worship are not from God, but from Man. Also, that God did not physically write any portion of the bible, Man did.
5.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Evi1) that Pro"s identity of God is incomplete and agrees that God provides Hope, which is outlined as a good thing, thus defeating the notion that God is wholly evil and only gives Man the worst traits. It"s an even distribution that Man, with free will, chooses.
6.Pro agrees to Con"s 1st point counter to Pro: Relative perception. By default, Pro has agreed to this key point to Con"s case.
7.Pro agrees to Con"s 2nd point counter to pro: Trinity. By default, Pro has agreed that the identity of God (from the bible) as a "triune entity."

Points Refuted by Pro R2
"Definitions. Con would like to refute Pro"s arguments against R1 definitions introduced as each amended definition (from Pro) did not come with a citation. Pro"s arguments of semantics are not relevant as there are no alternative definitions provided. To debate, the meaning of key words must be agreed upon to have a structure to argue around. The words offered by Pro with the and the World English Dictionary are accepted by Con. However, the arguments within the definitions are unsubstantiated and not valid to the debate as such action introduces new parameters of the debate long after such action is acceptable.

Pro"s R2
I was only able to identify a small number of argument points Pro makes in their R2 that are open for Con to refute with previous arguments that were accepted by Pro.
"Richard Dawkins (Quote1)
"God communicating through text (Arg3)
"Pro"s (Sum)mary

Points Refuted by Pro R3
"Con"s argument for Duality
"Con"s argument for the bibles account of Creation

Pro"s R3
"Human emotions of God
"God is a servant to Man
Con"s R3 Action
Pro begins their R3 with a barrage of personal claims against myself through the wording of my introduction. Pro"s arguments of "we" vs "you" are misguided as the word "we" was used to describe the collective whole of Man " not as 2 individuals in this debate. The word "we" stands valid and does not pertain to you and me, but that of all Mankind. I will surrender the evidence of my exaggerated math formula to attempt to create a scale with Pro surrendering their statistic of "80% do not read the bible." With no citation/evidence, this is as equal to Con"s math formula. In the words of Pro, "where did you get that made up statistic from?" Pro also makes a claim of nonrelevant value of that of "if there is any doubt"you are an atheist." This statement pertains to nothing in this debate.
Pro indicates that the omission of "days 2-5" from creation are that of deliberate avoidance. That is untrue as Con was simply using the story found in genesis to apply the bible"s account of God. This debate specifically states that the God figure to be debated is the God from the bible.
Pro uses a (Quote1) from the highly accomplished Richard Dawkins to describe God, yet due to Pro agreeing to my point of using only the Old Testament to define God is incomplete this quote is not valid. Richard Dawkins illustrates the already agreed upon fact that by limiting the Old Testament as the absolute identifier of God is incomplete " the New Testament must be applied to create the Trinity (another point agreed to by Pro). For Pro"s (Sum)mary I would like to apply the argument Pro refused to argue against in that it is a paradox for Man to live without God, more importantly for Man to "remove" God. So no, Man cannot do just fine without God " it is lunacy to argue that one can exist without the other in the bible.
Pro accuses God of many atrocities that should disqualify him from being any "good" however Pro has agreed that all action against Man is 100% the fault of Man, not God. Every example of evil provided by Pro is categorized as further action of Man, not God. As for God communicating through text I would like to indicate Pro"s agreement for Con"s statement of God having nothing to do with the writing of the bible, it was Man. Pro also concedes (Arg4) due to the previous agreement that God cannot possess human emotions due to the anatomical differences. Human emotions are for humans to experience.
Pro"s claim against Duality that "good can most certainly exist without evil and it is proven" is laughably false. The moral concept of good and evil only exists in the principles of Duality. No matter how thin you slice it, there are 2 sides to it. There can be no yin without the yang, no wave can have a crest and no trough"ipso facto, good CANNOT exist without evil. For a different interpretation, there must be contrast. Good existing without evil is the exact same statement as light can exist without dark.


For the vote " Please take notice of the numerous omissions and default agreements Pro makes to my case. I have identified and argued every point from Pr
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 2 years ago
The most plain and Simple answer to why Allah Kept evil is to to test Man and Jinnkind whether they repent after making mistakes and learn to humble himself and worship Him, Allah Alone even without seeing or consciously feeling His presence. For Allah is the Most Merciful, Most Benevolent, All Knowing, All Powerful. For in the Quran and the hadith it is stated that Allah's Mercy overrides His Anger, proving your disgusting filthy statements to be absolutely false.
This Vid alone will explain the difference indirectly between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins contradicted himself many times over, I can never take his words when he talks about subjective matters, more less than the common folk.
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 2 years ago
Seden, look I am no scholar, so all I was giving you was a feat-analysis-type of info. Info that differentiates from our Christian and Jewish counterparts, and makes our info far less subjective then their as our info has never altered for the past 1400 years. Now that you have brought history into this, Im obliged to debunk and educate you on history. WE have tried to stay at peace with the Christians, CO-EXISTED AMONG JEWS AS OUR COUSINS, and have made laws during ancient time (Which are now even followed by "democratic secular" governments) that allowed non muslims to co-exists within our lands for a jizyah of 1% and lawfully respected their presence. It was people of disbelief and not of Muslim faith from outside who wished to distort and destroy us, and have done so brutally, to which we responded with our armies to avenge, plain and simple. We never started the wars, but we were sure to be the ones to end it back in ancient times. Oh yes, and your selective cherry picking has to many flaws to count, go speak to an actual Mufti (High ranked Islamic Scholar) with those few verses as your arguement, and watch how badly you get destroyed by him with the counter response and the explanation you will get.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
Now there is no deity worthy of worship. None. Not only of god because of the fact that they truly hate far too much for them to even be considered to be god, but the fact that they give false hope. AND the biggie... you cannot prove that this god of yours even exists. Not only that but what stupid ignorant god would reply on faith instead of evidence? Faith is not evidence of any kind. Faith of. most certainly NOT a pathway of any kind to truth.
Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence? Matt Dillahunty

"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence." Matt Dillahunty

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

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins

You mention "power"? Really? What power? Apparently this god of yours is pretty weak if he cannot conquer pain and suffering. What kind of pathetic god would allow pain and suffering OF ANY KIND especially to CHILDREN? AND he hasn't won at all over other religions AT ALL now has he? Your argument is so frail and ignorant.
Ah yes YOUR god would create good AND evil. However with Buddhism as an example which is really not a religion and pother religions, evil is NOT a necessity, evil is NOT a requirement, evil is NOT s Need. But strangely according to YOUR god it is. Pathetic
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
@MuhammadAbrar - We're talking about the god according to the bible. I haven't read the Quran. but no need. Its rather clear that after stumbling onto a few verses quoted from wikipedia, that's enough also. Here's the thing that you Musilims and christians simply don't get... your god which are one and the same could have brought in and era of peace harmony, love, care for each other. Nah. Instead he chose hate, evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury jealousy which is admitted to in the christian bible by YOUR god. If you don't like comparing the Muslim god to the christian god, well that's just too bad. And then there's all the needless bloodshed, hate, violence GENOCIDE over the SAME god. Some particular verses that I like...
"A sacred month for a sacred month; [similarly] other sacred things too are subject to retaliation. So if any one transgresses against you, you should also pay back in equal coins. Have fear of Allah and [keep in mind that] Allah is with those who remain within the bounds [stipulated by religion]. "R01;Quran, [Quran 2:194]
"Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding." "R01; [Quran 8:65]
"From] now, God has lightened your [task] for He knows that there is now weakness amongst you: But [ever so], if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred, and if a thousand, they will subdue two thousand, with the leave of God: for God is with those who patiently persevere.""R01;[Quran 8:66]
Those last two verses NO DIFFERENCE from the christian bible. NONE. You don't believe in peace anymore than christians do. Period.
But I will say this... Muslims are much less likely to commit terrorism than other groups from around the world. To put your mind at ease -
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 2 years ago
This is due to the fact you have zero understanding of Allah's True nature because you only selective took texts from altered holy Books, instead of the Quran alone - which has never been altered in 1400 years. In the Quran Allah is proven Time and Time again that He is the Ultimate and the Only True Deity who is Worthy to be worshipped, and has absolute power Over Both good and evil. He is unaffected by Time or any means, and has knowledge at a stature we Humans can never achieve due to our limits, physically and mentally. However, in Christianity and Judaism, this is not true as they contradict themselves saying that evil has a strong force but Good will eventually overcome it - which in Islam is absolute garbage, cause in Islam it is stated That He, Allah, has Absolute Power over both Good and Evil.
Posted by JediDude 2 years ago
backwardseden, do you happen to be a Policy Debater?
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves.
See, here"s the difference between you and me" I do NOT EVER put out s--t without evidence, like you, and expect the world to swallow it. I ALWAYS provide EVIDENCE or I don"t post it to make myself look like an arrogant a$$eth holiness, unlike you. You provided 0 evidence for your ridiculous numbers and you expected me to actually take it in? That"s a joke - right? And with your mentioning of "To only consider a small handful amount of interactions God has with Man" you also proved 0 evidence to support any claims. No what you did was invent excuses and wing it and you did such a miserable job at it, and no one except for an extremely small % of christians on the planet would even daydream of supporting you, that it was so obvious that it became laughable and your "intelligence" thus fell to 0. THIS FRICKEN DEBATE IS NOW OVER. I"m not even going to bother reading your RD3. You didn"t deserve to have it posted because a true idiot like you was late in posting it which was YOUR problem and you cry about it like a little sissy baby. Nor am I going to continue reading the rest of your post which is obviously a total charade. You lose. Bye.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
@BMyers- You didn"t show any kind of an intellectual exchange in RD2 by running your yap and thus invent excuses and flat out lie from something in which you clearly, and let me repeat that word, clearly know nothing about. So its you that broke and intellectual exchange. And there you go yammering away "You didn"t want a debate" Well yeah I did with someone intelligent who actually had an education on what they were talking about and didn"t have to make stuff up and wing it from the hip as clear as day as you 100% know you did. And then you have the gumption to send me an email saying "Hardly - the format was for 3 days allowance to cast an argument." I mean wow, can"t you count? Truly just how pathetic are you? Oh and you know nothing about psychology. So don"t try to pretend that you actually do. Tell you what, let"s get into a game of poker and I will take every single one of your chips before you even sit down to the game. In other words, you flat out suck at your ability to read people. Try harder. Everybody should trash god. Oh and btw, its so crystal clear that you can"t even pay attention to what your god says and states. He freely admits he"s evil and yet you don"t take him as such. Therefore you have no friends or loved ones. How can you? After all if you do not take your god at his word, how can you take your supposed friends and loved ones at their word? So they would walk away from you or you would walk away from them.
Oh and btw, I don"t have to prove anything. Did I show you anything scientific in the debate? No I did not. It however is up to you to prove everything. Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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