BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Natural disasters occur at God's whim

He is all-powerful.....apparently. But cyclones, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis etc...all occur to God's people. They may be the most God-loving people ever, but he kills them anyway. If that's love, David Hasslehoff is the Queen. If God loves His creations and is omnipotent, why would He let them be "spoiled" in the first place. If He's all powerful, he should be able to do ANYTHING, including preventing the "spoiling" of His beloved creations. It's the Epicurus Argument all over agian.
God meets all the definitions of love as set out in 1 Corinthians 13

You are using the definition of love from the same source that describes God. This is circular. I may as well write a book where I define cats as barking flee-bags and then introduce a character called 'Fido' who plays fetch and is a barking flee-bag with floppy ears and then try to persuade you that this is a cat. Moreover I'm not really sure god does fulfill your criteria, he describes himself as jealous at various points in the bible, he definitely angers easily, and I would also argue that god is, self-seeking, rude, proud and boastful. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Who are you? Someone who loves you" - Return of the Jedi, Star Wars Episode VI I can quote scripture too, doesn't mean love was set out by George Lucas.
The definition of God does not necessarily entail that god is love

God can be defined as the perfect, omnipotent, powerful and knowledgeable being. Love is an emotion albeit a positive one. If God is everything it follows that God cannot be one thing, i.e. it cannot just be love it must be all things. So to say that God is love is to that God is only love. it is a contradiction. To say that God is love shows that there is not a being that is everything and thus the statement itself proves the non-existence of God. love is a part of God, not God itself. Therefore the claim that god is love is wrong because a contradiction arises. Also a contradiction arises when an atheist states that god is love, if God isn't then it must follow that God is nothing, i.e. God cannot be love unless God exists however the first paradox occurs again. Therefore the whole statement must be wrong to avoid those two paradoxes.
Whether the Bible contains God's word or not, using it as the single piece of evidence of God's love makes for a poorly substantiated argument

Did you know that all the Bible that you see nowaday are just another book that was typed and printed by a man? There is not hard evidence that there is a "god" Everything about god was just written by another human being like us. Do you know why people started to believe in GOD? It's because they were weak in the olden days and wanted to hope that there is someone out ther who could help them be free "magically". But since human wants are unlimited, the believing in God hasn't stop yet. God is only for people who are weak to believe in. To make it clear, for example, if you want something badly and you want to plead someone for it, you pray to him in a hope that a magical thing would happen. To make it simple, god is just another fairy tale. And people who believe are just like kids who want to believe that there is something magical out there in the world.
God has been the pretext for warfare throughout history

Who cares what George Bush did or didn't say about God. Bush is fallible; the Bible is not. Don't look to Christians when you can look to the Bible. Nobody is perfect, not even Christians. And we don't claim to be. Look to God and His Word, which is perfect. Jews and Muslims don't believe that God is love. Only Bible-believing Christians do. "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 (NIV) Faith in Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. That is the absolute Truth. The comment opposite about the Bible explicitly condoning the rape, murder and ethnic cleansing of God's enemies is false - Jesus bases his ministry around the inovocation to "love your enemy as you love yourself". Religion has been used as a pretext for war throughout history, there is no arguing about that. However a pretext is still a pretext - a reason given to justify an action, often one carried out for nefarious motives. The brutal warlords of history would have found other reasons to go to war if there was no religion. Religion is invoked to justify wars because it means so much to people - you can better motivate your soldiers to fight a war by telling them they are doing it for their god than you can by telling them that they are doing it for their country or their race.
The Bible is fictional

Read the Bible for yourself, cover to cover, and you will agree with me that it is the Word of God and Truth itself. There is nothing false in Him, and nothing false in the Bible. ______________________________ In response to the counter-argument: firstly, let me say that if you have yet to do what this yes point says, then why argue against it! As it stands, your counter-argument is not really a response, but an assertion - "What is inside it is rubbish". This seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing you're accusing the Bible of. Your argument is not backed up! You are stating things without showing where they have come from - have you personally done the research to qualify your statements so that we can take your word they are true? Is it actually possibly to regard any historical documents as 'true', such as those you claim disprove the Bible's claims? To state that there is "no proof of the Bible actually having a true basis" suggests it is possible to prove the truth of things - if there is in fact a way to do this, please let the world know, they're dying to hear it! Please substantiate your claims, and if you find you are unable, then I would get on and read the Bible, cover to cover, as the point above says, and perhaps you'll find some of your questions answered.
God meets all the definitions of love as set out in 1 Corinthians 13

1 Corinthians 13 1)If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2)If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3)If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4)Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5)It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8)Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9)For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10)but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11)When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12)Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13)And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (NIV) The Bible is the Word of God. Do read it for yourself. You have no excuses since the whole Thing is now online and freely so: http://www.biblegateway.com/ Oh absolutely God is self-seeking. Even many Christians do not realise this. As John Piper explains in his book 'Desiring God', God must necessarily be selfish. He cannot put anything before Himself because to put anything before Himself would suggest that there is something greater than He. There isn't.
God is a Genocidal Nutcase

If you think that a loving God isn't a pink ball of fluff, you are probably wrong. Sometimes, true love hurts. "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." - Proverbs 13:24 (NIV) God created us and endowed us with freewill. We should choose to believe in God and love Him, but our sinful nature makes us so shortsighted that we prefer the immediate fleeting pleasures of this world to eternal pleasure in Heaven. In the end, the world will always let you down; God never never will.
God loves you whether or not you believe in Him

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8 (NIV). Everyone is a sinner ("for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Romans 3:23 NIV) and we have done nothing to gain His love. Indeed, it is a wonder that God doesn't hate us all. Yet: "...He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." - 2Peter 3:9b (NIV) That includes you, precious people.
God has been the pretext for warfare throughout history

In reference to the invasion of Iraq George Bush said that God told him to do it. Meanwhile, the Holy Wars of the middle east are conducted in the name of religion. Judaism and Islam are contrasting religions with a common God. But they slaughter the hell out of each other. The Bible itself explicitly condones the rape murder and ethnic cleansing of God's enemies. The comment about Bible believing christians being better than Jews or Muslims only illustrates the prejudice involved in faith. Quoting the opposing argument, "Bush is fallible; the Bible is not." - May it be wise to point out that over the many centurys the Bible has been around it has been interpreted, doctored and altered by some very intelligent and cunning minds to suite their own agenda for political and personal gain. The Bible is therefore fallible as it is the creation of a very human collective.
He sent His own Son Jesus Christ to die for all our sins

Do you think highly of someone who will sacrifice their own son? This is especially erroneous since God is supposed to be omnipotent and could, therefore, have ensured our sins were taken care of without anyone having to die at all. Instead, just to make a point, he sent his 'son' to be nailed to a tree and left to slowly bleed and dehydrate to death over a period of days. I'm glad my dad doesn't love me like that. Your last point is not very christian, Its not enough to believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour, I need to belong to one of the thousands of various religions, and belong to the right one! Most of which state there's is their only path to heaven, through them. God cannot be benevolant (all-loving) as God woud not judge if he were. I am speaking not just in regards to judgement in the after-life but that which is preached from the bible. Jesus taught compassion and spread to word to "love thigh neighbour". However, we still see how Christianity judges segments of society such as gays, 'coloureds' etc. This therefore argues the concept of the inconsistant triad, which argues that the God of classical Theism cannot be omnipotent, benevolant and omni-present. For example, if we take suffering in third-world countries - God can still be omnipotent and omniscient (all powerful & all knowing), but not all loving, otherwise he would have helped those who are suffering. The same can be done with removing one of the other two. Furthermore, God is not in human form, and therefore cannot be seen in respect to human behaviour or emotion (i.e Love). Love is a human emotion and therefore cannot be assosiated to a non-human entity.
The Bible is fictional

No proof of the Bible actually having a true basis. What is inside it is rubbish. The bible has over 100 authors and 1000's of amendments, This is factual. Because the text has been changed it cannot be "Truth", The bible is a composition of many smaller books selected and compiled selectively and rewritten to suit the needs of the time. For example Pope Greggory wrote the 10 commandments that Moses was meant to have read. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My niece, 17 years old, wrote a book entitled "The Book". After reading it from cover to cover I found many shocking stories, fish declaring wars on each other; people being turned into salt (stolen I believe from an older source); warnings, too much cake makes me die a little on the inside; astronomy, the stars are infact the reflections of the eyes of giant cats waiting to pounce on our earth once it is all covered in darkness; and ethics, only ever kill with consent of the animal, that is, any animal which doesnt run away from you. The prologue of the book was entitled "I am the Truth-Please believe me" and regularly "the book" preached that everything written within it was the essence of truth. As I said, I read it from cover to cover, took in all of its messages, then fell into a deep sleep, and haven’t thought of it since.
God is a Genocidal Nutcase

Most of the old testament consists either of God smiting the enemies of the Israelites or smiting the Israelites because they didn't do what He wanted. An analogy between that and a disciplining parent is not particularly good because 1. You can't really improve your behaviour once your entire civilisation has been wiped out by God's 'chosen people' 2. Supposedly God made us, he could have got round the need for smiting by programming us to do good. Instead we're supposed to believe that he programmed us to do bad, so he could drop plagues on us from time to time. Overall he just seems to have a nasty penchant for ethnic cleansing and gets a right mardy on when people don't do exactly what he says, if that's love I'll pass thankyou very much.
lol impossible God is God

too easy .. god is god and love is love. For a thing it self is a thing in itself .. if something has more then love it is not love initself.. but something with a relation of love...... That is, love is for certain a positive feeling. Some may get a possible feeling of love when thinking of god... but some don't. Therefore love cannot be a part of god or everyone would get this feeling.. but love is definition in us.. The Fool on the hill...
God is love

Though if you are to quote these passages from the Bible, it would be assumed that the Bible is indeed 100% correct and has never been altered, doctored or cropped by the many minds of the last two centurys in order to solicitate their own personal agenda and gain. Especially in a less open-minded time period in which going against this "Word of God" was in many places blasphemous behaviour that sought the more violent displays of public persecution and execution. It can be argued that the "Word of God" in the Bible was much more influencial than the word of written law for the majority of the last 2000 years and therefore a political superweapon. Perhaps the even older and more reliable source, the Jewish equivalent - the Torah - can shed more light on this as Jews believe that Jesus was just a man given divine status by the Church of Christianity following his death.
Natural disasters occur at God's whim

We live in a fallen world. I don't need to tell you that. People say lies about you, they scam you, teens rebel, doctors murder babies, etc. When sin entered the world, back in the Garden of Eden, all of creation was spoiled. Hence the earthquakes, cyclones, droughts, flash floods and the rest.But Christians needn't worry about these things. The worst that can happen to us is that we will die. True Christians have the assurance that they will go to heaven, non-Christians to hell. You heard me right. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." - Acts 4:12 (KJV) Jesus is the only way to avoid hell, where people who have not truly put their faith in Christ "will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." - Revelations 20:10c. You know you have done bad things. Everyone does. But do not be fooled into judging yourself by the world's standards. For "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment," (James 9:27 NIV), and judgement by a Just and Holy God. One sin and you are in Hell. Our situation was hopeless. BUT, praise God, God sent His own Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins as the perfect "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29 NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16 NIV, emphasis mine) Hallelujah
He sent His own Son Jesus Christ to die for all our sins

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16 (NIV) "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8 (NIV) All sins have to be atoned for by death, hence all the sacrifices made by the Israelites in the Old Testament. Jesus was the Lamb of God, the perfect sacrifice, so perfect that it covers all the sins anyone has ever committed. All you have to do is to admit that you, like the rest of mankind, are a sinner, believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose victorious on the third day, and turn from all your sins. It's the least we can do.
The Bible clearly states that God is love

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." - 1 John 4:8 (NIV) To address your point about defining both love and God... most dictionaries have definitions for both love AND God, and I know that there is more truth in the Word of God than in all the dictionaries combined, because "All Your words are true; all Your righteous laws are eternal." Psalms 119:160 (NIV) The Bible is perfect and whole. No external source needed.
Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech

Net neutrality does not technically have any impact on what you can say. It does affect who you can reach with said speech, but on the individual level, it has no bearing on the first amendment. Response: It does concern freedom of the press. In the U.S., the press—any media outlet—is also allocated freedom of speech. A controlled net would mean a controlled media. Internet service providers would even be able to block certain outlets if they found an excuse to do so, and that is certainly a violation of the first amendment.
Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field

Conservative lobbyists who would abolish net neutrality are quick to brand the Open Internet Order as a regulative measure. Regulation to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire. Somehow, allowing huge internet service-providing corporations to exercise any kind of profit-seeking behavior they can come up with is better for business than giving new sites a chance to grow. In a Forbes article titled "Net Neutrality Is a Bad Idea Supported by Poor Analogies," Jeffrey Dorfman writes "[Net neutrality] is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different." That would be a rich analogy, right? Response: Broadband service is not ice cream and, categorically, it comes in one flavor anyway. What varies is its quantity. Conservatives who trumpet the anti-regulation cause have no ground to stand on. They do not argue for anti-regulation, they hope to take the power of regulation from the government and give it to the private corporations.
Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.

1) The government is allowed to regulate certain products, even if a company creates them. Government regulation of business is a way to ensure that consumers are protected, and companies should not be given complete free rein over their products - there are always rules and regulations. 2) Internet providers created the ability to access the Internet, but not the content on the Internet itself. There is no reason that these large companies should be given the power to dictate who can access what content.
A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.

So what is the alternative? A free market approach where if Yahoo pays the ISP to allow its page to be loaded up faster than its rivals? That would simply hand the internet over to companies that can afford to make their websites fastest most so blocking off a lot of the innovation on the internet. Why go to a new search engine as it will take forever to load because it has not paid the isp while google and yahoo have? This leaves government or some independent authority ensuring net nutrality as the only viable choice if the internet is to stay as creative as it is.
Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.

Today, anyone can create a website for very little money and fill it with whatever they want. For a lucky few, their website provides information or services that the public generally likes. They share their website with friends and over social media, word catches on, they place some key advertisements with GoogleAds and elsewhere on the internet, they create some solid SEO content and, before long, they're rolling in internet gold and glory. Striking down net neutrality will cut the fanfare short. Writing to Congress in 2005, Vice President of Google and inventor of the Internet Protocol, Vint Cerf argued that: "The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control … a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online." This kind of freedom that the anti-net neutrality crowd is after has not existed in any industry in the U.S. since the Gilded Age, when the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan exercised monopolistic control over their respective industries to keep the playing field stacked in their favor. Mark Fiore describes this with a Dr. Seuss-esque cartoon.
Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech

With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal "War and Peace Report," and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is "the first amendment issue of our time." With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. "With great power," says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, "comes great responsibility." That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be.
Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field

Since the Progressive Era, the United States has not harbored a true capitalism. For some weird reason a laissez-faire market leads to massive wealth inequality, exploitation of lower class workers, and gives unbridled power to the super wealthy. While we haven't exactly succeeded in solving that problem, we have introduced regulations to help even the playing field and create conditions such that businesses of any size have an improved chance of getting off the ground. Internet business is no different. Before any website loomed large, it was just a small, struggling startup. Remove net neutrality, and you will remove the even playing field that allows new companies to get a foothold.