Instigator / Con
11
1478
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2871

Is God of the Bible evil

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
2
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
1
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Description

Any atheists is welcome, be respectful and like always have fun and good luck.

This is my first debate.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: PRO establishes a framework and builds his case based on God acting immorally whilst having the capacity to avoid doing so. CON ignores the framework and attacks the credibility of PRO as a judge of God's actions, as well as try to justify God's actions. Yet a single line of though from PRO destroyed CON's case:

"Imagine if a guy went to court in the modern-day for continually thinking wicked thoughts (or murder, it doesn't matter), and the judge sentences him, his wife, his children, and his dog, to death by drowning. We would call that judge a horribly wicked judge, dealing out cruel and unusual punishment, horribly disproportionate to the crime. "

Backed by PRO's argument that God could always do else wise, PRO successfully shows that God of the Bible is evil as from a human perspective. CON's rebuttal is that God does not need to conform to human standards, which fails to address that evil is a human term with human definition -- and PRO fulfilled his BoP while CON did not.

The sources point is very simple actually. CON obviously gets the sources points as his main thrust is to use "the context", as well as referring to Biblical verses telling us that God is just and Christian webpages explaining the Christian interpretation of certain passages. CON even went so far as to use Biblical references to Jesus as to prove that God is loving rather than evil.

The spelling, grammar, structure and style of CON made it really hard to read his arguments, meaning I have to give PRO the legibility point.

CON's general style as a constant accusation of PRO, often personally, makes his conduct horrendous. For example, this is a real quote from CON's R2: "Let me ask you something, do you deserve the death penalty? If you say no let me ask you have you lie, steal anything even if it’s small, do look at women with lusts, have you murder anyone(hopefully no) break all 10 commandments?"...

That is a personal question that one should not be allowed to ask, and CON uses this accusation of PRO being a "sinner" to devalue his logical evidence. He actually said:" Yes God of the Bible is all-powerful but why should he listen to sinners"; => CON uses the accusation of PRO doing immoral deeds to evaluate his logic -- absurd and improper conduct that shall be penalized with a vote in PRO's favour for conduct point.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument - Con starts out with presenting no arguments and simply passes the debate over to Pro to make the first argument. Not all that much better than a forfeiture really.

Pro - Pro starts out with arguing how God should be blamed for murdering Children and quotes 2 Kings 2:23-24, Exodus 12:29, Genesis 7:22-24, and then concludes that the god of the bible is overwhelmingly evil.

R2 - Con opens round 2 in better fashion, offering rebuttals, and responds to all Pros arguments with his take on the bible. So we have Pros opinion versus Cons opinion.

Pro - Pro begins round 2 in the same fashion. Pointing to how god is evil for killing children. Pro breaks down Cons argument bit by bit and makes understandable points regards to how babies can't have wicked hearts. There is then a dispute about whether or not children and babies were around at the time of Noah, and I do believe Pros argument for children and babies being around is probably more Scientific, though Pro does not produce any scholastic evidence. But never mind, Con argues that it is their own faults anyway because their parents should have listened to Noah. Pro offered no rebuttal to this statement. Though he does offer rebuttals to everything else.

R3 - Con opens round 3 arguing for why god murdering children is ok. in the second paragraph they get to crosswires over an issue which Con is actually correct about. Pro did take his statement out of context. Con then argues that abusive parents breed abusive children. A very extreme opinion, but an opinion all the same. Con then asks why god should listen to Pro? Which, is fair enough.
"Now", Con comes out with a "terrific" argument out of nowhere to explain why there was no babies at the time of Noah. "Child sacrifice". "You are half right but also wrong here is why I can’t remember the verse but I know that Babiloyians have human sacrificed(babies included) to their gods so imagend how bad it was in Noah's times that's why I don’t believe that there were babies because people are having sex and killing them in the process"
I am also extremely impressed by Cons translation of the Hebrew bible when he explains that the word used to describe those mauled by the bear can describe anything from children to adults. Con is now presenting arguments that do need rebutting, though he should have presented this earlier.

Pro - Pro offers rebuttals to all arguments by breaking down Cons argument in detail, bit by bit, but what I am really interested in is his response to those couple of great arguments presented above, and the first claim is rebutted by the pointing out of the carthaginians. Now I am actually surprised and shocked to find that despite breaking down Cons argument, Pro decided to not rebut the major argument about the translation, which leaves me wondering why? And is then Pro reading bibles that have mistranslations? He really needed to respond to this. I will go back over the argument once more to double check that he did not. And after checking, I find that Pro skipped over it. Pro wrote that he had refuted everything. " In conclusion, the god of the bible is overwhelmingly evil. Every example given has shown this to be the case, and my opponents attempts at justification for these horrible atrocities were soundly refuted".. In actual fact, Pro did refute everything, except the most important part, and that was the part when Con raised concerns over translation, and that children being killed could be a mistranslation. -I disagree with Cons philosophies in the instance it is not a mistranslation. However, however, however, if it is a mistranslation then that is Pros argument out of the proverbial window, and Pro done no research on this claim. Did not even respond to it.

Argument - Con

Sources - I am equally shocked, because I admit at first impression Pro had won this debate until I read about the mistranslations. Regarding sources, Pro only really produced three sources from the bible, which even in the voting policy is regarded as a not very good source. On the otherhand Con supported his bible research with a source regarding the mistranslations. I have not read the source to find out if it states what Con claims, but this should have been disputed by and refuted by Pro. - Con

S&G - Cons grammar went from extremely good to appallingly bad in stages, giving the impression there may have been someone else helping - Pro

Conduct - Pro was accused of strawmanning, without justification - Pro

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro was able to gain the initiative by proposing a simple standard for evil: the murder of children. He then backed it up with biblical accounts of God doing just that. Con is not really able to defend from this, as saying things like the children were maimed by a bear instead of outright killed, still leaves the main thrust of the point of cruelty to children unhindered. Claiming there were no children before the flood, was an outright non-sequitur.

Pro could have done a bit better, as he missed a critical point with Egypt (in that focusing on how God could have easily changed the Pharaoh's heart, it ignores that in the story it clearly states he did exactly that to force the guy to not obey him). Still, no challenge to God having the means to do otherwise without any difficulty.

I do give con credit for just claiming any innocent God kills goes to heaven (for that, I highly suggest quoting the bible). It was an avenue that could at least be explored further, but it intuitively did not cast sufficient doubt within our limited knowledge and standards (as much as I would love to see that explored directly in a debate).