God is Great.

I must admit to being slightly mischievous in this debate. I forfeited several rounds because I was waiting for my opponent to place some type of argument or proof for the existence of god. Nothing, thus far, has come out of that. I shall now interject. I shan't need the time he has wasted. Fact- Bad things happen in this world. Possible explanations- 1- God causes bad things to happen (Evil) 2- God knows bad things happen, but doesn't intervene (Evil) 3- God does not have the power to stop them (Not God) 4- God does not exist There is no evidence to believe in god. None whatsoever. Everything that happens can be explained or contains the possibility to be explained using non-supernatural methods. We know what we know BECAUSE of the scientific method, and not because of any sort of divine intervention. We know that certain things work because we can test them. It follows that just because it cannot be tested, does not mean we should say it is likely. God, or the supernatural, are possible, I grant you, though extremely unlikely. They fall into the category of myth. My first contention, more of an outrage really, is at this extremely frightening definition of good. He would claim that good, as he knows it, comes from the bible. At this we should shudder and take flight for I cannot think of a more respected book in the history of humankind which has shown to be downright evil in terms of morals. Let us not cherry pick the good from the bible, as it is sometimes there, but also beware of the horrible things it would command us to do. This includes, but is not limited to, keep slaves, not allow women a voice in hardly any matter, mutilate your child's genitals and indeed murder your child if you hear the voices telling you to do so, and last but mist certainly not least is the commandments from god ordering the genocide of several different peoples. This, comrades, I hardly call good morals. As for his true definition of morality which is another form of the golden rule, I must point out that this does not originate from Judaism or Christianity (certainly not Islam) but is, in fact, innate in our species because it is beneficial. That is to say I do not believe, and neither do any respectable scientists (among them Laurence Kraus and Richard Dawkins), that there is in our universe and objective, absolute morality. However, I must also concede on this point that the golden rule should seem like a quite basic tenant of ethics, so long as the one proclaiming it is a good person to start with. As Christopher Hitchens has said, the golden rule is only as good as the person using it. You wouldn't want Charlie Manson treated like you want to be treated. So, I would see the golden rule as a very basic explanation of the term good. I wish, also, to present what I view as good: universal suffrage, human rights, freedom of expression, and overall comfort-ability of life. I am a humanist, and I adopt their principles. I do apologize, as well, for having to continue to debate the good, but I shall do it very quickly. My opponent refers to the ten commandments as what he views as good. I say hogwash; they are a very poor list of morals with the first three or four only having to do with God being jealous and vein, while the others are very loosely relevant. I would say the only two commandments that can be called "good" are do not murder or steal, which would seem to make god a hypocrite. And once again, I say that morals are generally self-evident, but we should understand good as far as the UN declaration of human rights does, or those of the beliefs of the Humanist Association. Now, onto the real debate. I do certainly not consider loving my enemies to be good. Actually it is a rather disgusting idea. No, I shall not love my enemies, I shall hate them. For to be my enemies, they must have done something that was not love, and hate will be returned. This is clearly not a moral principle. And neither does it show that Christianity is a force for good in the world. As far as Jesus caring for the poor, I wish! If only, I say, the Christians acted like their Christ. If only Jesus" social policies were followed and socialism was adopted. If only the words of Jesus were carried out by Christians. Again, the gospel has little to do with how Christians have acted for nearly two thousand years. The question is if Christianity is a force for good, not whether Jesus said some rather sweet things. I offer, then, that my opponent has NOT fulfilled the task by showing that Christianity is a force for good, but also understands good as something most would consider evil. As a result I shall write why Christianity is evil, and needs to be abolished. Shall I start with the Spanish Inquisition, or perhaps the many Jews that the Vatican handed over to the Fuhrer, the somewhat silent acceptance and cheering on of the third reich, or even, maybe, I shall start with the lover of poverty Mother Theresa. No, I need but name one thing, currently occurring, which shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that not only is Christianity not a force for good in the world, but is indeed evil. That is Ratzinger's position of "AIDS is probably pretty bad, but condoms are worse." For such a statement to be made, by a rich man who is evidently not interested in making the world a better place, who was a member if Hitler Youth, who would have hundreds of thousands of people (men, women, and children) die, who has the audacity to call himself the mouth and ear of God, my comrades, this is not a good force in the world. With over a billion Catholics, Christianity can be said to be mainly part of this sick and twisted non-idealist, totalitarian faith. In conclusion, I wish to say this: one may do good as a non-believer, indeed perhaps more than a believer (we certainly commit less crime). Christianity is NOT a force for good in the world, and for my opponent to say otherwise, he would need to explain away all of the actions of this wretched company (the Vatican). As my opponent is a Christian I ask this: isn't it fantastic you were born into the right religion? I also ask: Why do you not believe in the Norse Gods? Or ancient Egyptian Gods? etc... I leave him then with a challenge. I will call it the Hitchens challenge: Name for me one moral or ethical action that a believer can do, that a nonbeliever cannot do. Also, name one evil action ONLY a believer could do. I am sure that you will not be able to solve the first, as there is no answer, but the answer to the second pops so easily into everyone's head: the list is far too long.