If God does exist, he is evil. (Abrahamic god)

"So, assuming that God can do what he likes... he can be looked at as lazy if he does not interfere on either side." I suppose; I see that more as simply being fair. But, hey, semantics."Okay then, so a theologian could do that, and he can formulate Bible-based proof for God's evilness. True."So, in admitting a theologian could argue for good as well as evil, you admit that God is not inherently evil. It seems as though every other point you make is against your original statement."You don't get it. It doesn't teach them WHY, read, WHY <----- it is wrong."And you are ignoring the part where everybody, read, EVERYBODY <------ knows that rape is an immoral activity. God doesn't have to teach these rapists; everyone and their mother can tell them why it's wrong, because we have God-given reason. Think of it likes this: When a child does something bad in class, it is the parent's job to tell them why what they did was bad, but they still face the teacher's punishment."Atheists want God to be proved which has yet to happen, so that is why atheists even exist... And it's still profoundly immoral to punish someone more than another over the exact same thing, just because one didn't by [sic] into an idea, he will perish for the same sins. You have yet to prove that's a good thing for atheists. You see nothing immoral about it because you are a theist."If atheists truly wanted there to be an afterlife, they would at least convert to agnosticism (which is all anyone is, anyways). As far as I'm concerned, in saying with certainty that there is no God, you essentially have accepted and dismissed any sort of afterlife. In that, you are content with what you have here. If you truly wanted to believe in an afterlife, you would have faith or, at the very least, agnosticism. Giving atheists the confirmation that there is nothing beyond their life is giving them exactly what they are content with, and is thus not immoral.And you say that as if you know I'm a theist."...the definition if God is: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe... So if you don't believe these things, you technically don't believe in God, which would make you an atheist."If you're going with Merriam-Webster's. I went with Oxford's, the first result on Google for "God definition", which states that God is, "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." This is a more lenient definition, but still within the realm of this debate's Abrahamic God. You really should have defined 'God' in the very first round of this debate, but here we are, discussing minute details, and not meeting this new criteria.And again, what does it matter if either of us are theists, atheists, deists, agnostics, apatheists, or whatever? Any atheist could potentially argue God's goodness, just as a theist could argue God's badness. This does not discredit an entire debate. I'm sorry that when you started this debate you did not expect an argument that didn't rely so heavily on Bible-thumping. You expected some narrow-minded Christian to take this on so you could point out some flaws in the Bible and discredit them. Instead, you got this dude who can accept both sides of the argument and plays to both sides' insecurities."...but (God) allows pointless evils, and pointless good. He isn't supposed to allow pointless evil at all. So, since he does, he defiantly can be looked at as "two-faced" although you don't agree with that choice of words."You know what, fine, let's use "two-faced". I don't care. You still admit that God is not inherently evil, which is all this debate relied on."So, I believe we have come to a conclusion here. I have lost, although as I pointed out above, both arguments are useless if you don't follow the definition of what God is."What? If I don't follow the definition of what God is? I'm sorry you didn't bring up a definition until literally four rounds into the debate merely as a means to backtrack and hopefully save what little basis for your argument you had in the first place. That is not my issue.___Voters, this debate has consisted of issues over clarification and definitions. Nevertheless, on numerous occasions, my opponent has admitted that God is, at worst, simply an indifferent God. Perhaps this is not an admirable attribute, but it is certainly not evil. If my opponent would, in the future, like to more clearly establish his terms and conditions, I might return to take that argument. Regardless, my opponent has admittedly tossed the debate. Still, I encourage the voters to vote for whoever made the better argument, keeping in mind the only requirement for this debate is to prove that God is not an evil being. Many thanks to my opponent for a strong (albeit somewhat confusing) argument, and I look forward to any debates with him in the future.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...