CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
I AveSatanas am more moral than God
If I were god or had his powers I would:
not have created hell, not have created satan, not have created evil OR the potential for the amount of evil that exists IF evil is necessary, would make sure my message is clear and infalliable to ALL people in the world, wouldn't flood the world, command genocides, command rapes, sacrifice anyone, or any of the hundreds of attrocities in the old testament.
i would answer ALL prayers in some way, not make absurd rules or regulations, and not exact punishments that were overly harsh or unnecessarily gruesome or violent.
the world would be more peacefull, and able to support all life equally and humanity would thrive and be free to advance forever.
i a simple teen-aged human being am more moral than the god of the bible, Torah, and Koran.
Easier said than done... just saying. You don't know the circumstances of the situation God may be in. It's pretty easy to say that you would do this and this and this, but if you can't be 100% moral and loving and kindhearted in real life, what makes you think you can while being a god? I'm not saying that you're a bad person, but I'm just asking, how many immoral or unjust actions have you taken in life? If your answer is 1 or more (probably more), then you can't say you'll do "x", "y" and "z" as a god, because you probably won't.
Because God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. Literally: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. As god I would be such and therfore not be under and "circumstances".
I have done bad things sure, but that's because I am just a human surrounded by impulses and restrictions and circumstances. As god I literally couldn't be. As all powerful everything starts and ends with me, I would have total control and could easily do what I said above.
True. But once again, I repeat, you never really know the circumstances. I know that there's this whole thing about God being all powerful and all knowing, etc.. but you never know, maybe He has His limits. What I'm saying is that you can't be quick to say that you would be better than God, without fully knowing the workings of the spiritual realm.
Well, I don't agree with you in your beliefs, but i understand them. I don't like how people go around down voting posts just because they don't like the person. So here's to fair debate, Eh? Arguments are meant to be controversial, but not hateful. No one should ever get mad while debating.
I do. And I'd even give you some of it if you didn't just deny and ignore it as I know you would. So I'm just not gonna waste my time writing a thought-through argument. Instead I will simply go with "you are dead wrong."
I believe what is right for me, no matter what other people think. I take people's beliefs into account, but in the end, I decide what beliefs are right for me. If you want to down vote this too, go for it.
This sounds as if you are saying that you don't care whether it is true, as long as you feel it is right for you, you will believe it. Is that really what you mean or am I misunderstanding you?
Believing something does not make it right, so it matters very much if someone says something is wrong. Unless you don't care about it, which in turn means you don't really care about yourself.
You don't take people's beliefs, opinions, or criticism into account, you've demonstrated that plenty of times. Stop lying so blatantly.
Down vote this, too??? Just for accusing me for something I did not do I am going to downvote it, and not just this.
You are so immature. I am reporting you for abusing the down vote function. You have no right to tell me what to believe. I have the right to choose. And I am not lying. I respect Judas, JoeCalvary, Saurbaby, and Andy, all of whom are not Jews like me.
Wow. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! You really are a retarded fuck. You accuse me of downvoting while I did no such thing. Then I give you what you deserve, what you basically asked for - some downvotes. And then you start downvoting me because of your screw up, and not in this one debate, but all over the entire site, everywhere?!?!?
You are retarded, literally.
I'm 22 and I would never do something that stupid.
Is it true you are 31 as it says in your profile? And then I look at how you behave, and keep yourself up, at your "arguments". You honestly are retarded.
If you cannot take the heat get out of the kitchen. You down vote me, now I down vote you, sweetheart. Have you gotten laid recently? That might be your problem, and no, I will not help you with that. ;)
I cannot take the heat? Are you fucking kidding me? Again?
You literally cannot handle heat. You have shown it so many times, and again and again and again.
No, you accuse me completely baselessly of downvoting, then also say go ahead and do it, then I give you a little extra. All within the boundary of one debate. Then you begin downvoting me, all over the site, not just in that one debate.
Resorting to petty insults like "you've gotten laid recently" are completely ineffective and useless against me. All it shows is you've got nothing else to say, that you are defeated.
Either way, I'd rather hump a pile of shit than you.
Both of you stop. Now. Honest debate is one thing. Cat-fights with petty insults is another completely. I'm not assigning blame, but continue and I'll have to ban you from this debate and possibly future ones. I don't want to do that.
Both of you stop. Now. Honest debate is one thing. Cat-fights with petty insults is another completely. I'm not assigning blame, but continue and I'll have to ban you from this debate and possibly future ones. I don't want to do that.
Yet you gave a further pointless response. Grow up.
My response to all your crap will now be "Grow up." (assuming I'll even stick around... wouldn't be the first to leave because of idiots like yourself who make this site not worth attending, not to mention those who didn't even sign up because of morons like you)
This idiocy that's been going on here, truthfully since the moment I signed up and from what I've read it was so even before that, is not what I came here for in the first place. I came here for intelligent debating, but instead such idiocy flooded the site, what I read was far too stupid to not say a thing about it, so I stuck around a while.
Good luck keeping the site an idiots' sandbox of "debating". You know... children like playing in a sandbox. But you're grown-ups... and considering the crap you constantly spew, without ever critically or objectively thinking about what you're saying, about the world, about yourselves, means you are in fact mentally retarded, and morons. Seriously... even children, generally, aren't as stupid. Sorry, children (not you many morons around here), for comparing you with these worthless skin-bags of meat, fat, and bones but no brains flooding the site.
Andy... wanting something and actually having a talent for it, or knowing how it is supposed to be done, are not the same. Many people want this or that, but what they don't realize is that it might not even fit them, that they simply cannot do it right however strongly they wish they could. Instead of wasting their time with it they should find something they are good at, or at least better at. You may own this site, but you do not know what you are doing, you don't know how to maintain it, you don't even know what really is important. If you did, the site would not be so full of idiots, so full in fact that because of it it is not a debate site. If you want it to fall under a strict path (debating), then moderating and banning those who don't learn from their mistakes (excessive trolling, people like Ismaila, and other forms of spamming) is absolutely necessary.
Okay he never replied so i guess ill take over. Not to be a dick but just so i can give you the scoop on how arguing theology works (not trying to be condescending):
This is how the burden of proof is applied as he explained above: The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, not the one denying it. Therfore in this debate YOU are the one making the claim: "The God blank exists". We (the athiests) are simply rejecting your claim. We are NOT saying "Your god blank does not exist". If we did, that too would be a claim and the burden of proof would rest on us for THAT claim. Follow?
Now we dont just say "i reject that, you prove it" and stand there with our arms crossed waiting. We also do supply evidence for our rejection even if it isnt techinally called for and we still argue against theist arguments and evidence to defend our thinking. So dont think were just stubborn and lazy.
So to get back to the argument above, you are wrong when you say that WE are the ones who have to prove YOU wrong. Based on how the burden of proof works, YOU must prove your claim is true to US the rejectors, not vice versa. This is so because anyone could just yell stuff like "I have a purple unicorn!", and people would say "no you dont" and then they would say "prove i dont". That is no way to debate and not how the burden of proof operates.
Sorry for the lengthy explaination but i want to be sure we have a mutual understanding, which leads me to part 2: What is a burden of proof?
A burden of proof is what you have to meet as a claim maker. It is the amount of sufficient evidence that you must provide to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that your claim is valid. This is used in our court system. The burden of proof lies of the persecution who says "That person did that crime" which is the claim. They must then supply evidence through witness testimony, physical evidence, ect to meet that burden to persuade the jury/judge to convict the person. The opposite is also true that if they DONT have reasonable evidence then the jury wont be persuaded because the claim wasnt proven true.
So what is "reasonable evidence"? Well it depends on the claim being made and more specifically the "SIZE" of the claim being made.
Ill use this analogy:
If i tell you that i wrote a pulitzer-prize winning piece of literature, you probably would not believe me just by taking my word for it. Thats a pretty big claim. So youd ask what evidence i need to prove it to you. Now the most obvious piece of evidence i could use is to show you the award. That would instantly prove my claim true. But i could also use smaller pieces of evidence such as witnesses to my prize reception, or the fact that im a well known famous writer to begin with. These smaller pieces of evidence alone may be unpersuasive, but together may prove to you my claim is true.
The amount of evidence depends on the size of the claim. That was a decently sized claim so i needed decent evidence to prove it. Now if i just said i had 20$ in my pocket, you could probably just take my word for it because that is a really small claim.
Now lets talk god. Saying there is an almighty consciousness who created the entire infinite cosmos and our very beings is an ENORMOUS claim in itself. But youre not stopping there. You are also saying that this being is THE GOD. The abrahamic god of the old testament specifically AND that by extension, nearly EVERYTHING written or said about him in the bible is FACT, at least to whatever degree youre stating.
That claim is probably the single biggest claim ever made by any human EVER.
This claim is so enormous, so absolutely huge that you need MASSIVE amounts of evidence to support it. You need historically factual sources, scientific tests, physical evidence, witness testimonies and countless other things. So much so that you can prove that claim. OR the most obvious is that you actually SHOW god to us. Actually have him in some way prove himself, which you cant really do. So you gotta stack up all this other evidence.
Now if youre going to go the extension of the bible being true and all that you must first prove god exists before even talking about things that concern him. If you do that it is known as Ridiculous arguing. An example of this is arguing whether unicorns have purple or pink horns. They havent been proven to exist, therfore you cant argue anything about them.
And after you DO prove god, you then also have to support everything stated about him with supplementary evidence too. Every verse in the bible makes its own claim and must be treated with its own burden of proof leaving you with THOUSANDS of claims and burdens of proof for each one ON TOP OF already having to prove god's existence. For example, you would also need to prove Genesis happened the way it did, and that Jesus was/is real, and that Jesus turned water into wine, or that Noah was really 900 years old.
This is freaking impossible if ive ever seen it. The first question itself (is god real?) has racked the brains of theologeans and scientists since the beginning of human life! But if you are trying to claim that god is real AND the things (all or some) in the bible are true, that is what you must do.
Now im going to tell you right now, to this DAY, ALL who have tried to prove god's existence have FAILED. Every argument to date has FAILED. Every piece of evidence, DISPROVEN or NOT EVEN APPLICABLE. Every christian apologist, theologian, or christian scientist over these 2000 years combined have not been able to do it. And not to be a dick, but you wont either sorry.
God still has a posibility of existing, but it is so absurdly small and in the face of so much contradictory evidence that any rational person of the 21st century SHOULD take a skeptical stance on this question. Im not trying to be an ass, im just telling it like it is.
I hope this was helpfull to you and that you dont think im an ass LOL. And sorry for the length, i tend to write essays XP
When an atheist argues that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god has shown to not be doing a good job were not judging a god believed to exist but questioning its existence in the first place. If god truly does exist it can't be all three of those while evil exists in the world, if god can't create a perfect world It's is not all powerful (omnipotent), if god can't detect all evil and flaws in the world where those are wronged to put a stop to them It's is not all knowing (omniscient), if god knows how's how to make a perfect world and is powerful enough to do so but doesn't It's not a completely loving god. When we point out that "god" is a shitty god its not cause we are mad or that we think the world is a shitty place and we are complaining, it's because that everything we've observed about the universe contradicts the idea of an "omnigod". When you add the idea of an "omnigod" being responsible for all of existence if I assumed this was true I'd have a lot of reason to complain.
The real point I'm trying to make is their is nothing emotional about ave claiming he'd be a better god but him trying to point out the idea of that type of gods existence at the least doesn't quite add up. Therefore we don't want to "take it up with god" cause we don't think god exists in the first place, we aren't mad at a god we genuinely don't think exists.
Satan is the most malevolent entity known to mankind.
He is far surpasses mere rage or war-like mentality.
He is depicted as being on fire and red with horns but this is merely the curse of ugliness God gave Lucifer for rebelling, it doesn't mean he's actually an angry guy at all.
It's like if i forced you to always have a rage face on even when you were calm.
Satan is merely the pinnacle of temptation, pleasure and happiness without regrets.
You are not the one who has been there for me when things got ugly. You are not the one who died on the cross for my sins. No you are not more moral than God.
I wouldn'tve even LET those ugly things happen to you. God couldve stopped it, couldve saved you. But alas, NOTHING. Not a divine intervention of any kind. I would've stopped it. I promise you that.
I also wouldn't let sin exist and if I had to I wouldn't sacrifice anyone for it. I would relieve you of them FREE OF CHARGE. Because I'd be all powerful and all loving and I could do that. God didn't. He murdered someone for no reason for it.
And aren't u Jewish? I thought that mean you don't believe Jesus was the son of god.
No matter how you look at it, I AM more moral than your god.
I just gave you like three....honestly is isnt rocket science.
Here's my argument:
1) God controls (or has the ability to control) all things that occur on earth no matter what they are.
2) God is all knowing so he knows that these things to occur (he is not ignorant of them)
3) Bad things occur, therfore god knows/knew about them and can change their outcomes for better or worse.
4) Bad things happened/happen all the time AND bad things happened to you (i believe you said you've been raped)
5) Based on 1 and 2, god made these things happen and knew they would in fact happen AND did nothing to stop them.
Part 2:
IF i were god and was Omnipotent and Omniscient (which is impossible by the way) i would not have allowed these things to take place in the first place. Or if they were already predestined to occur i wouldve stopped them. AND if i couldnt have stopped them for whatever reason, i wouldve HEAVILY and TANGIBLY assisted you in a full recovery in every way i can.
God:
Caused your rape in every way and did nothing to help before, during, or after.
Me:
Wouldntve caused it in the first place OR wouldve helped before during and after (IF for some reason the rape had to take place, though based on the description of god being all powerfull and unrestricted, that wouldnt be the case).
That is why i am more moral than your god.
I would of course do this for all people at all times and only punish those who try to do harm. I would keep peace on earth, not create it out of being a BUTTHURT CRYBABY over what two people did in a magic garden.
I can tear through the bible and critically destroy every horrible thing that the abrahamic god does. Richard Dawkins summed up his description perfectly:
TheGod 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.”
Morality is subject to opinion. I cannot prove I am more moral and you cannot prove God is more moral. I can only provide you with what i know about him and what i know about myself. And based on what I know about right and wrong, i would make a far better god than yours 100x over.