Most True Christians Are Sadists

[riley2112]

We have you, a Christian, who worships a being that is demonstrably sadistic, supposedly harming people for no fault of their own per its own holy book.

Velkyn, you are forgetting the basic principle of SPAG.  Nice people have a nice God.

To them the little Canaanite children went to Heaven.

that is true.  They ignore their bible and make up Happy God.

I am thinking about doing just that.

[freefromjesus]

So BibleGod's ends justify His means? That's not normally considered a moral thing to do.

Let's say there is a airplane crossing the Atlantic Ocean headed for a very heavily populated U.S. metropolis. The aircraft contains over 250 civilian passengers. There is indisputable evidence that a nuclear warhead with extraordinary destructive power is aboard the plane and is armed to detonate once the aircraft reaches an optimum altitude on its descent. The U.S. military has the capability to shoot down the aircraft before it reaches a position that would instantly incinerate millions of people. Do you shoot it down or not?

I'd shoot it down but since we're dealing with BibleGod's sense of morality, he'd launch a jet to every major metropolis on the planet and take out the missile systems used to shoot them down, thereby wiping out Millions of people all for his shits and giggles. Than some moron would come on a message board and say " His ways are higher than our ways" and we can't question God.

[C]

Oh come on FFJ, you can do better when you're BibleGod!

Since you promised that you wouldn't flood the world again by showing a pwetty wainbow over the bloated corpses of millions of beings, you gotta get a bit more creative than that and JUST shoving planes into buildings. No, what we need is..hmm, ah yes! What we need is another flood. A flood of airplanes! Yes, but we need to be more poetic. Hmm. Wait, eureka! I've got it!

How about incessant, falling torrents of billions of bomb-strapped airplanes that are loaded with the circumcised penis flesh of human males throughout history since Abraham?

To make it worse but also in showing your love for Man, why not warn 4 atheists and 4 impossible-to-convince Young Earth Creationists and tell them to build an underground shelter to wait this metal deluge (without the metal music) out?

To make sure your moraltastic and humane lesson is imprinted in ages to come, make sure that the 4 atheists are sterile and that the 4 YEC individuals will reproduce the human population so that religion can once and for all produce a peaceful world!

And THEN once the Internet is back up have a random person go back to the now deserted boards of the WWGHA forum and say "His ways are higher than our ways and we can't question God"!

[Alzael]

Also, you are NOT God. You did not create the universe, our planet, the water, the sand, the sun, the moon, the animals, plants, or any of us. Your mind is incapable of grasping the enormity and complexity of  the vastness of God's existence or any of His creation. 

We don't have to be god in order to judge him. Remember your own bible? We know good and evil as god does, we have the knowledge from the tree. If we have the same understanding of good and evil then we should be able to judge him on those terms, and gods actions are clearly that of an evil being.

Even if we didn't have that knowledge though, it doesn't matter. Even if we can't grasp these things as you say, it doesn't make god a good being. It makes god an ambiguous entity, which still brings us right back to the point that your belief that god is good is based on nothing more than your own desire to believe it.

Furthermore if we can't understand whether god is good or evil, why should we follow him if he behaves in a way that we perceive to be evil? True, god may be bucthering children and it may actually be ultimately for a good reason. However if from our limited perspective everything we can understand about god shows that he is evil and a monster, why shouldn't we believe that's what god actually is? Should we actually just assume that he's doing the good thing just because he tells us he is?

That's insanely stupid, BS. Even you must realize that.

[Hatter23]

Is it fair to say, then, that you find no good whatsoever in any religious belief? If so, do you still feel the negatives outweigh the positives?

No I do know religious belief does make some people behave better than they would otherwise. Particularly those of such limited intellect not to get enlighten self interest nor sufficiently morally developed to have a sense of empathy.  That and the inspired art, I don't mean all religious art. Some of that simply stems from religion have the wealth at its disposal in order to have the ability to be a patron.  But those works that seem to have comes strictly from the passion of religion. I also think it served a a rudimentary manner of tribe cohesiveness in the distant past.

However, measured against what it has cost the human race in the past 5 centuries...overall it has been quite harmful by comparison. Absolutist Dogma like Religion, National Socialism, Communism, and so forth all leave a similar legacy of some measures of merit mixed with acts of unspeakable horror.

It really isn't religion that's the problem, it is holding a dogma that is held above evidence and above simple human kindness. Religion is just the largest and most dominant Dogma of that kind. Look what Religion did to "Mother Theresa" who used the resources and vast goodwill given to her to create buildings to increase suffering, because it thought it made those more like Jesus, rather than using them to attempt to reduce transmission of disease. She thought she was doing good, but she was increasing real world pain.

That is the legacy of religion.

All that really says is that there are misguided extremists within various religions. You take "religion" out and don't you believe there would still be extremists views about any number of issues? We are all different and differing views will always be present.....whether religion is behind them or not.

First of all thrse "Misguided extremists" aren't few in number. Let just look at the Right Wing Religious Coalition in the US. a group that advocates treating atheists and homosexuals as criminals, wishes to undermine the entire science cirriculum(worsening the economy and making America dumber and more warlike) and treat Catholics as second class citizens.

30 million in that group alone.

As to are there other sources of strife, sure. There are several sources of strife in the world, over economic systems, over resources....but that still doesn't justify the strife and pain caused over who has the best imaginary friend.

[jaimehlers]

The ends very seldom justify the means.  Occasionally one has to let them, but it doesn't work if the ends are always used to justify the means, because then the means corrupt the ends.

What ???

I didn't think it was all that complicated of a concept.

Someone has a noble goal.  They use non-noble means to try to reach that goal.  As a result, the goal is tainted and corrupted by the means used to try to get to it.

Let's take, oh, say God and his presumed goal of saving humankind from suffering, sin, etc.  As a means to that goal, according to the Bible, he caused the flood and killed all but a mere handful of humans off entirely.  In other words, his fine, noble goal of saving humanity from suffering, sin, and so on at one point required that the vast majority of humans suffer very greatly for a short time and then die.  Again, according to the Bible.  And let's not forget hell; apparently, in order to save humankind from suffering and sin, it's necessary to force a significant subset of the human race to undergo endless suffering because of sins in hell, at least according to a depressing number of true believer Christians anyway.

At what point does this fine, noble goal end up requiring so much awfulness that it's not worth the cost?  That's why the means used to accomplish a goal are just as important as the end of the goal itself.

[Traveler]

...The opposition to abortion is not exclusive to "religious" groups...

I hear you. But it was just an example. The fact is that religious concepts have permeated our government since the time of the cold war when "one nation under god" was added into our pledge. They want prayer back in school. They want to undo the freedoms that our founding fathers worked so very hard to put into our constitution. This is not a nation just for christians. It's a nation for jews and atheists and buddhists and everyone else. But christians would like to wipe out the truth of our founders and make this a exclusively a christian nation. That affects my life in many ways, both obvious and subtle.

[pianodwarf]

Hi, BibleStudent, good to see you posting again.

Okay. Fair enough. Can you give me an example demonstrating how organized religion hinders your ability to live a fulfilling life?

Sure.

In my senior year in college, I had sex with a girl who was from a severely Catholic family.  Afterward, she told me that she was pregnant and (for whatever reason) she decided to tell her father first instead of me.  Her father advised her to quit college, return home, and have the baby without ever telling me that she was pregnant, so that I would spend the rest of my life having fathered a child and never knowing about it.  Why?  "I don't want a fucking atheist raising my grandchild".  Verbatim quote.

Getting the mess sorted out took about two months, that is, the bulk of the semester, and I was so distraught that I fell behind on all my schoolwork.  I was so thoroughly academically derailed, in fact, that I wasn't able to finish the semester, and ultimately, I ended up never getting my degree.  (And I've heard horror stories that are far worse.  Try Googling David Mills sometime and read the story about what happened when he said he was going to organize a protest against a preacher in his hometown.)

This counts as a "hindrance", to put it mildly.

[pianodwarf]

Would you walk into NASA and dictate how the next spacecraft will be designed, engineered, and what color it was going to be painted? They would dismiss you in a rather rapid and forceful manner

Excuse me, but I happen to work for NASA, so I think I'm qualified to comment on this.  If you were to engage a NASA scientist on spacecraft design, in all likelihood, what would happen wouldn't be that he'd sneer at you and tell you to get lost.  More likely, he'd see it as an opportunity to engage in a lively and entertaining debate about a subject that he loves.  NASA scientists and researchers -- for that matter, NASA employees in general -- tend to be pretty passionate about the organization they work for.

[BibleStudent]

He saved the only non-evil people. Who then proceeded to go ahead and do exactly what pissed him off in the first place. Clearly god is a master planner. It was a whole day or two before Noah's son got cursed for doing something wrong.

Here I am pointing out one of the major flaws inherent in "gods plan". Namely that the people he chose to save went ahead and commited the same types of crimes he punished everyone else for immediately.

Stating that God’s plan had “major flaws” is conjecture. It’s an opinion that you cannot support with evidence. Therefore, you did not ‘make a point’ nor could you possibly do so …..you merely stated what your impression is. Are you able to provide the evidence that would validate your ‘opinion.’

And I'm sure the babies of course we're so intensely evil that they had to be drowned as well.

Another point made. This one being that god also drowned all of the babies of the earth. None of whom could have commited any evil as.

Again, this is conjecture on your part since you could not possibly know or demonstrate whether God administered any form of pain and suffering to these infants. You assume that they died a horrible death by drowning but if you want to adhere to the strict guidelines of the forum then I am going to have ask you to prove your so-called ‘point.’

Not to mention that gods plan to "save" us involves saving us from the punishment that he himself inflicted upon us.

Again, a perfectly valid point. Gods plan of "saving" is to save us from something that he himself created and put into place.

Continued conjecture since you cannot possibly demonstrate that God created that which you find fault with. This is simply your opinion with no basis in fact. Do you have proof you can share with us that will demonstrate the validity of your opinion.

Same as above, you know the drill by now.

So what about these does not constitute making a point, BS. Please enlighten me. How were these incoherent or not understandable?

Yes, I know the drill all too well and as should be seeing by now, you do not practice what you preach.

So basically because god tells you that it's for a greater good, it's ok for him to do things that even the most depraved and immoral humans in history would consider evil. All because he has told you to trust him and you decide to do so, even though there's really no apparent reason why you should do so. In fact there's every reason that you shouldn't since by nearly every standard of morals that humans have your god is a monster. Including your own standards. You simply give him a pass because you "trust" that he does these terrible things for a good reason. Wonderful.

Again, a perfectly valid point, isn't it?

By every human standard your god does things that could only be done by a terrible monster. However you excuse it because you "trust" him. Something which he himself told you to do.

What makes this not a valid point about your ideology, BS?

No, it’s not a point at all. It is additional conjecture that presupposes God is somehow bound to adhere to a system of belief that you have created. Furthermore, it presupposes that God sees moments and events in history in the same manner you and I do. Can you demonstrate that God exists in a state that makes Him subject to your moral judicial system? Can you demonstrate that the outcome of any of His decisions, commands, or actions would have had a more favorable result if they had been carried out according to your infinite wisdom?

People like Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin may have killed millions in horrible ways, but at least they had some sense of right or wrong and  some sense of morals. At least they thought they were doing something good, however deluded and wrong they were.

You however, you simply don't care. You show no concern or caring for the suffering and agonies that others experience nor any consequences. Or what may happen to others. All you ever show concern for is the will of your god.

This is pointing out the horrible implications of your theology, BS. That you don't actually care about right or wrong, or others suffering. You only care about what you are told to do and your own salvation.

This is a broad and sweeping judgment based only on an impression you have. It clearly implies that we lack ANY sympathy whatsoever or any desire to be kind, forgiving, merciful. Therefore, kindly provide proof that God and Biblestudent do not care about right or wrong or others suffering and that we enjoy the suffering of others. You are going to have to come up with a lot more than that Nazi story (that you have repeatedly dug up like an old rag) if you want to paint an accurate picture of me and God. This should be interesting because you do not even know me nor could you possibly be aware of the extent of care, sympathy, and assistance I give on a daily basis.

You are not making a ‘point.’ You are using broad generalizations in an adolescent attempt to make it appear as though you are the superior human being.   

There's no hypocrisy at all. The computer that you are using is proof that our methodolgy works. The vaccines that you take, the tv you watch, the food that you eat, the weatherman on the radio that you listened to while you went to work. Nearly everything in our modern lives shows that our methodlogy works. I can look around the room that I am in right now and point to fifty things that show that my methodolgy works, because these things came about as a direct reslut of using that methodology.

A point that shows that the methods of "logic" and "rationalization" have led to almost everything that we enjoy and depend in our lives. A clear refutation of your claim that one cannot validate the trustworthiness of my method anymore than you can the bible. As I pointed out, our method produces real world benefits that anyone can see.

I will give you a “close but no cigar” on this one. Still, you have failed to demonstrate that your methodology is the only conceivable process. What exactly do you use to gauge whether it represents the optimal and strategy in existence. You make accusations that I bend to God simply because he says I should but you are doing the exact same thing. You are bending to a methodology simply because it is the only one you know and, truth be told, could be based on faulty human thinking.

This is only one of the posts that I've made so far. However it seems to me that it isn't so much that I don't  make points, but that you've been deliberately ignoring them.

Again, the larger portion of your posts are not making ‘points.’ They are ramblings filled with opinions and conjecture and rarely, if ever, supported by anything of substance or which constitutes a verifiable source.

It's not negligence though, is it? Did you actually go back and read the threads that I linked when you asked for proof about why you went to the ER?

With regards to my visit to the ER which, for some strange reason you are glued to, my contentions to having been placed there are contained in the ER thread. Whether you disagree with them or not is irrelevant. Again, there is a difference in feeling about who was right and who was wrong and that’s that. I am not going to re-hash that entire episode with you all over again. If you find some comfort in continuing to beating it like a dead horse, then enjoy yourself !!

As for hounding, yes I do actually. That's because I feel it important to point out when people like you are being dishonest in their discussions and outright lying. You don't get to just ignore it when someone makes a point against what you say. You respond to it, even if it only to say "I don't have an answer". It's one thing to sometimes overlook a post when there are a lot of them. Or to not have the time when there are many you have to deal with. However that doesn't apply to you. You ignore posts out of dishonesty. Which is not how the rules of the forum work.

Kindly provide proof that I have lied about anything.

So yes, I do engage in such a thing on occasion. Because it illustrates the point of just how weak of a position people like you have. That you have to continually ignore valid points because you know you can't respond to them in an honest conversation.

I have no problem whatsoever having a “conversation.” I welcome other people’s opinions and comments and observations….BUT…..you obviously do not understand the difference between a simple “conversation” and the more formal process of arguing something. You use both interchangeably when it suits you….providing conjecture and baseless claims at will all the while criticizing me for allegedly doing the same thing. You just don’t get it. You are as guilty of using a double standard as anyone I’ve encountered on this forum or anywhere else.

What you seem to focus the majority of your efforts on is making insults and accusations.

Please prove this.

I indicated that it “seems” to me as though you do. That word in that context has a certain meaning which qualifies my statement as lacking irrefutable proof. However, if you really want me to go back and list all of the vile insults and accusations you’ve made that led me to making this comment, I gladly will. Just let me know…..it’s a large list

Believe it or not, I'm multi-talented. I can make legitimate points in a conversation, and insult scum like you at the same time.

Scum like me, eh? That’s nice…and very helpful in discussing the topic.

BS, I insult you because you give me absolutely no reason to treat you with any respect at all. You lie, you dodge, you have no intellectual integrity at all, you hide when asked to back up your claims, you show no capacity for empathy or compassion, you are an absolutely terrible person.

And even more insults and unprovable accusations. As I stated above, , kindly provide proof that I do not care about right or wrong or others suffering and that we enjoy the suffering of others. You are going to have to come up with a lot more than that Nazi story (that you have repeatedly dug up like an old rag) if you want to paint an accurate picture of me. This should be interesting because you do not even know me nor could you possibly be aware of the extent of care, sympathy, and assistance I give on a daily basis.

On another note, I'm not beating you down with adolescent remarks. I'm beating you down with truthful remarks backed by evidence, as well as valid points and criticisms.

This is an utterly inaccurate statement as I have demonstrated above. The vast majority of your so-called ‘points’ are nothing more than opinions.

When you begin practicing what you preach, I’ll give a better ear to your input.


edit: changed a word

[BibleStudent]

Would you walk into NASA and dictate how the next spacecraft will be designed, engineered, and what color it was going to be painted? They would dismiss you in a rather rapid and forceful manner

Excuse me, but I happen to work for NASA, so I think I'm qualified to comment on this.  If you were to engage a NASA scientist on spacecraft design, in all likelihood, what would happen wouldn't be that he'd sneer at you and tell you to get lost.  More likely, he'd see it as an opportunity to engage in a lively and entertaining debate about a subject that he loves.  NASA scientists and researchers -- for that matter, NASA employees in general -- tend to be pretty passionate about the organization they work for.

That's good to hear !! My illustration was just that...an illustration...and was not intended to depict the staff at NASA as being nasty people. I sincerely hope that I did not do that.

[jaimehlers]

BibleStudent:  You asked Alzael repeatedly to provide evidence to support his points; such as that God's plan had major flaws, that God drowned numerous babies during the flood, that God created the tree of knowledge, etc.  If you want to go this route, that's your business.  However, you must first provide evidence to support your contention that there is a God at all for your complaints about Alzael not providing evidence to be taken seriously.

The Bible does not count as evidence, for all it proves is that a human wrote down those words.  It is comparable to arguing that there is a world called Pern because there are various books about the dragonriders of Pern.  Therefore, you have to find things in nature that serve as actual evidence of God's existence.  I await your response.

[BibleStudent]

BibleStudent:  You asked Alzael repeatedly to provide evidence to support his points; such as that God's plan had major flaws, that God drowned numerous babies during the flood, that God created the tree of knowledge, etc.  If you want to go this route, that's your business.  However, you must first provide evidence to support your contention that there is a God at all for your complaints about Alzael not providing evidence to be taken seriously.

Your logic is flawed. Alzael must assume the possibility of God's existence in order to opine on His character or His actions. No proof of God is necessary since the possibility has already been implicitly conceded to by Alzael. If what you contend were true, then everything that Alzael has said about God is completely irrelevant and utter nonsense. In other words, his only reply would have to be: "God does not exist, therefore, there is nothing to judge or comment on."

[velkyn]

Yep, that's Romans 9.  "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy."  Now show me where in there people are damned, that is, sent to Hell, through no fault of their own.  Note that a lack of God showing mercy does not mean that they do not deserve judgement.

  ROFL   Oh my, MiC, I do love how you try to claim that since God didn’t say he damned people, that means he does’t.  Now, dear, if God has no mercy on someone, what happens to them?  Yep, you guessed it, they are damned per your bible.  They don’t simply die and nothing more happens, indeed your god is all about you are either with it or against it.  It’s so funny to see such pathetic arguments from you.  You’ve ignored the rest of the verses that I’ve posted too.  Like this which shows your argument to be simply wrong “18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”  Is Pharoah destined for Heaven, MiC?  Or is he damned?  And how about this one “22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?”  Now do you want to claim that destruction isn’t being sent to hell?

Wow.  Really?

Wow, yes really.

Let me be very clear here: He is under no obligation to save you. 

ooooooh, MiC knows what God is “really” required to do or not.  It’s so vewy vewy twue since MiC has put letter in BOLD.     

He is under NO obligation to show you mercy.  He WILL, if you but ask him, but your demanding it of Him like a petulant child will get you nowhere.

petulant child? You mean like your god is again and again in your magic book?  Killing a man for keeping his magic box upright?  Killing animals for a whim when he could have just annihiliated mankind from the face of the earth.  No, I’m not petulant child.  I am pointing out how your bible promises things and then fails repeatedly.  You claim “mercy”, etc, and have yet to show an actual act of mercy by this god of yours.  Get your self a dictionary and see what mercy means, and then show me where this god has any of this quality. Actually, I’ll post a definition for you: a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy> . Repeatedly claiming that your god is merciful without one single example is nothing more than your attempts to create your very own god from your own imagination and the usual pathetic attempts to redefine words.  Where is damning someone for something they didn’t do merciful, MiC?  You claim it is, not support your claim.  I’m not some one who accepts your claism with no questions nor do I accept the sadistic claim of “might equals right” or a Christian who figuratively stomps his feet and insists that his version and his alone, is the only right one.  I just laugh at you, insisting that your invisible friend is real like some idiot child.

I mean, how could you even think He has some sort of obligation to you?  Remember, we're assuming the whole biblical narrative is true.  How in the world do you get from "I've sinned against an infinitely holy Creator" to "He really ought to save me because I know better than He does about what's best."  Have you even read the Bible?  I mean, that's the whole point of Romans 9: You're a sinner.  You've sinned.  You don't get to demand things of God.  You just don't.  Have you really truly and honestly examined your own life, that you could honestly think a perfect and holy God is required to capitulate to your demands?  Seriously?  The arrogance of such a claim is stunning...

Oh, very very easily, as I have already supported my viewpoint and of course, you can bring yourself to actually address that, only protesting on how I could possibly disagree with your baseless nonsense.  I’ll repeat what I’ve said since you seem intent on ignoring it:

I would say yes, he is.  If this god really does want everyone to come to him, he is required to do all that he can to get me to believe and being omnipotent and omniscient, he should know exactly what that would take. In that I already know what that is, this would be “forcing’ me like so many apologists want to claim, to excuse their god’s impotence.  He simply has to meet that  requirement, which incidentally, he’s responsible for if he made me the way I am, questioning mind, and keen eye for hypocrisy.

We have what your bible claims and I simply expect your god to do what it says.  I know I know, horrors when I dare to point out how your bible says one thing and you try to claim another.  I do not have to be perfect for this god at all. It supposedly wants everyone to come to it, and if it does, and if it is omnipotent, it should be using every means in its power to accomplish its *own* desires.  It requires no arrogance on my part, just me reading the bible and calling you (and it if it existed) on what it says. Oh, and yet again, you’ve not shown any evidence your god exists at all, much less that it is anything like holy or good or perfect. Indeed, your bible again and again demonstrates an inept deity, again no better than Zeus, Odin, etc; there is no perfect holy good god at all.

I’ve read the bible, MiC, something you seem not to have done with your amazing ignorance on the actions of your bible god.  And love your strawmen too!  Seems you can’t actually address my posts but must pathetically attempt to lie about what I’ve said. Always good for a laugh in a written medium.  It’s also hysterical that you think that you can claim that Romans 9 is about someone sinning.  Where does it say anything about humans sinning, MiC?  You want to make a claim then support it.  I can read Romans 9 and easily see that you are simply wrong, and evidently hoping I can’t read the bible at all.  What do you think, that I’ll burst into flames if I do, being a bad ol’ atheist?    Romans 9 underlines again and again, that it is God’s whim that allows someone to be saved, it is up to it to give its grace and, as JC said in those various bits in the gospels, which surprise! you’ve ignored, that only those who god chooses are able to be saved.

[velkyn]

Alzael, fishjie, Velkyn:

Do any of you understand that, according to the Biblical narrative which we've assumed to be true for the sake of discussion, you sinned against God?  Do you thus understand that He owes you no mercy, only justice?  Do you understand that the just punishment for sinning against an infinite God is an infinite Hell?

Alzael did a good job of explaining this too you and you ignore it. How sad.   And please do show me how damning someone for something that they didnt' do is "justice".  Again, you need a dictionary.  And how is being infinitely punished for a finite sin just?  I'm not just talking about me, I'm talking about anyone who doesn't believe in god like in John 3, where it says that if you don't accept you are damned, quite literally.  Babies, those who dared to be born in the wrong place and time, those who are mentally incapable, etc.  All of these you want to be damned for their supposed sin, and since you didn't say I was wrong about my assumption, original sin too.   

I mean, you're talking about the fact that sinners are sent to Hell as a terrible state that God really ought do something about.  According to the Bible (which you've assumed true to show how mean He is) sinners get sent to Hell because they deserve it.  You ought be perfect, and yet are not.  You are mercifully offered chance after chance after chance after chance to turn, and will have none of it.  After the umpteenth time you spit in his face, (and look at all the threads on this very forum to see examples of just that) do you really think God still owes you His mercy?  How can "mercy" be something anyone owes you, anyway?
I'm flabbergasted.

That isn’t hard for you to be evidently.  Oh noes, someone disagrees with me, how can that be with God on my side  

And again, dear, I have not been offered chance after chance.  I’ve told you that I’ve prayed to God as a doubting Thomas and still nothing.  So you’ve failed right there.  And that’s no surprise at all.

[velkyn]

I think you are missing the point, though. My question was based on the seemingly irrelevant motivation to advance a belief that, in the long term, leads to a red hot end (and I am not referring to Hell when I say that). What is it that keeps you restrained from doing whatever the heck you might feel like doing?

wow, this is what BS has come to?  Pathetic little attempts to try to convince atheists that they shouldn't bother showing how he's wrong and his religion is harmful with an attempt to claim that atheists should all be nihilists? 

Nice little attempt to try to get people to sit down and shut up but unfortunately for you, BS, your ignorance is showing again. 

[pianodwarf]

Alzael must assume the possibility of God's existence in order to opine on His character or His actions.

That's not true at all.  You can opine on a fictional character's character or actions very easily.  Luke Skywalker used to bullseye womp rats in his T-16 on Tatooine.  Did he use a sidearm or a long arm?  And if the latter, did he hold it with just one hand, or did he hold it with both hands and steer with his knees?

[Hatter23]

Alzael must assume the possibility of God's existence in order to opine on His character or His actions.

That's not true at all.  You can opine on a fictional character's character or actions very easily.  Luke Skywalker used to bullseye womp rats in his T-16 on Tatooine.  Did he use a sidearm or a long arm?  And if the latter, did he hold it with just one hand, or did he hold it with both hands and steer with his knees?

I didn't think a T-16 had an open cockpit, does it?

[pianodwarf]

I didn't think a T-16 had an open cockpit, does it?

It was a closed cockpit, but I thought that some of the windows could be opened at low altitudes.  Looks like I was wrong about that, though, according to Wookieepedia.

[BibleStudent]

Alzael must assume the possibility of God's existence in order to opine on His character or His actions.

That's not true at all.  You can opine on a fictional character's character or actions very easily.  Luke Skywalker used to bullseye womp rats in his T-16 on Tatooine.  Did he use a sidearm or a long arm?  And if the latter, did he hold it with just one hand, or did he hold it with both hands and steer with his knees?

Then 'proof' would not be a requirement....did you miss that part? You can't prove a fictional character thus making any request for same downright foolish. Sorry, but the logic still doesn't work.

By the way, he used a long arm and R2D2 did the steering. 

[BibleStudent]

I think you are missing the point, though. My question was based on the seemingly irrelevant motivation to advance a belief that, in the long term, leads to a red hot end (and I am not referring to Hell when I say that). What is it that keeps you restrained from doing whatever the heck you might feel like doing?

wow, this is what BS has come to?  Pathetic little attempts to try to convince atheists that they shouldn't bother showing how he's wrong and his religion is harmful with an attempt to claim that atheists should all be nihilists? 

Nice little attempt to try to get people to sit down and shut up but unfortunately for you, BS, your ignorance is showing again.

Now, if I responded like that I would most certainly be accused of 'dodging.' So I call foul. The question wasn't even directed at you but since you chimed in, kindly provide a response that addresses the question.

I was not trying to "claim" anything as you falsely accuse me of doing. I am genuinely interested in trying to understand.

[Alzael]

Stating that God’s plan had “major flaws” is conjecture. It’s an opinion that you cannot support with evidence. Therefore, you did not ‘make a point’ nor could you possibly do so …..you merely stated what your impression is. Are you able to provide the evidence that would validate your ‘opinion.’

No it is not conjecture. You made a claim that gods plan was to get rid of the evil people. I pointed out that the people he "saved", the people you said were non-evil, went right ahead and kept on doing evil.

Hence, the plan did not work. Maybe you use different definitions than I do, however I would consider a plan that wipes out all life on earth to eliminate evil people whcih fails to eliminate all of the evil people, seriously flawed.

But a fair attempt at a dodge anyways, I'm forced to admit.

Again, this is conjecture on your part since you could not possibly know or demonstrate whether God administered any form of pain and suffering to these infants. You assume that they died a horrible death by drowning but if you want to adhere to the strict guidelines of the forum then I am going to have ask you to prove your so-called ‘point.’

I did prove it already. It's called a simple logical progression.

There were babies on Earth. > Babies are living things. >God drowned all living things except eight humans in a flood. > Ergo,god drowned the babies.

It's sad that I actually had to explain that to you.

The rest is a Strawman since I didn't actually claim that they died a "horrible death". You were the one who felt the need to include that.

You yourself have admitted that god killed everyone except eight people in a flood, so this is actually a rather stupid contention on your part. You also dodge the point about how the babies could be considered evil.

I give it a 3.5 on the dodge-o-meter. Not your best stuff.

Continued conjecture since you cannot possibly demonstrate that God created that which you find fault with. This is simply your opinion with no basis in fact. Do you have proof you can share with us that will demonstrate the validity of your opinion.

Conjecture.....you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Of course it can be demonstrated. First off, according to your beliefs god created all things and is omnipotent. So by your own admission he created what I find fault in.

But let's go beyond that. Humans are created by god. He decided on our nature, put us in the garden with the talking snake, etc. When we ate from the tree, it was god himself who placed the curse of original sin (you have read the bible right, BibleStudent?) upon us. He made a deliberate choice to place this upon us. Then he created the convoluted path to salvation through faith, in order to save us from the punishment that he himself inflicted on us.

So to make it simple (in deference to you).

God created us. God gave us our mental faculties. God placed us in the garden with the snake in front of the big tree he did not want us to eat from. God chose to inflict us with original sin. God created a place of punishment for those of us who have the infliction of sin. God created a plan to "save" us, from the punishment and infliction that we're both created by him (as opposed to you know, just outright forgiving the sin).

So it looks like I can demonstrate such a thing. Unless you have an actual intelligent argument to make against the point. Instead of just trying to dismiss it as "conjecture".

That's the problem with an omnipotent creator being. Everything ultimately becomes his fault.

Yes, I know the drill all too well and as should be seeing by now, you do not practice what you preach.

Not a response. How did those not make a point? How were they incoherent or not understandable? I just showed how they made valid points (again), do you have an actual argument that invalidates them or not?

What we're seeing, BS, is that my assessments of you remain embarrassingly accurate.

No, it’s not a point at all. It is additional conjecture that presupposes God is somehow bound to adhere to a system of belief that you have created. Furthermore, it presupposes that God sees moments and events in history in the same manner you and I do. Can you demonstrate that God exists in a state that makes Him subject to your moral judicial system? Can you demonstrate that the outcome of any of His decisions, commands, or actions would have had a more favorable result if they had been carried out according to your infinite wisdom?

No, again it is not a conjecture. This isn't even a real response to what I said.

I said that by how humans define morality, god commits actions that could only be carried out by an absolute monster. However you excuse these actions because you "trust" in him that they are done for a good cause. However your trust is given only because he has told you that he is the good guy. A claim which has absolutely no reason to be believed.

I did not say that god was bound to adhere to any particular belif system. I did not say anything about how god sees things. I did not say that he was in anyway subject to human morals. Nor did I claim any infinite wisdom, or that his actions might not actually yield a greater good in the long run. Your entire rant is a pathetic Strawman that doesn't respond in anyway to what was said.

Like I said, BS, I make points all the time. You just choose to ignore them.

This is a broad and sweeping judgment based only on an impression you have. It clearly implies that we lack ANY sympathy whatsoever or any desire to be kind, forgiving, merciful. Therefore, kindly provide proof that God and Biblestudent do not care about right or wrong or others suffering and that we enjoy the suffering of others. You are going to have to come up with a lot more than that Nazi story (that you have repeatedly dug up like an old rag) if you want to paint an accurate picture of me and God. This should be interesting because you do not even know me nor could you possibly be aware of the extent of care, sympathy, and assistance I give on a daily basis.

You've proven it with your own words several times so far.

In regards to right or wrong.

1)You have claimed that as god is our creator he has the right to do as he wants with his creations. At this point right or wrong become irrelevant.

2)You follow this god even though you possess no means of knowing whether he is good or evil. You follow simply because he has told you to and because he is powerful. The fact that you have no way of actually knowing his intentions does not matter to you. Again, this shows that you have no consideration for what is right or wrong. Or any moral considerations in general. If you did, it would be very important to whether you actually knew what your god was doing was right, as opposed to being told it.

3) To quote you. "That is, if God has what you deem to be sadistic character traits, who am I to question it? Is it necessary for me to like, approve, and cherish everything He does in order to bow down to Him?"

"I simply trust that the Creator of our very existence is capable and fully empowered to do with us as He desires in order to fulfill His plan….and, yes, like it or not, ultimately we have no say in the matter."

"Suffice it to say that while I do not understand all that God has done or is presently doing in this world, I accept my place in HIS creation and concede to His power and might. I am in no position to judge that which CREATED ME nor do I claim to know a better way to fulfill His plan."

You outright state here that you do not care if god is good or evil. You bow to god regardless of his actions.

In regards to suffering.

1)God creates suffering on a massive scale to millions of people. This is the closest to any consideration that you shown such a thing so far.

"I do not find anything pleasant about any of those....nor would I condone or encourage any person to embrace them as "right."
However you follow the god who does these things and more. You would commit these acts of suffering if you genuinely thought he was asking them of you, would you not? How can you claim to care about the suffering of others, when you fully support one who causes/ has caused untold levels of it.

2)As an omnipotent being, there is literally no reason for there to ever need to be suffering. Anything god wanted to do could easily be accomplished without it. So to cause suffering itself, must be a goal of your god. This is also something that you have no discernible problem with.

I could go on, but I've provided more than enough information to prove my point. You are, of course, free to rebut. Just try to actually make it intelligent.

You are not making a ‘point.’ You are using broad generalizations in an adolescent attempt to make it appear as though you are the superior human being.   

This, in itself, is a broad generalization.

I will give you a “close but no cigar” on this one. Still, you have failed to demonstrate that your methodology is the only conceivable process.

I never claimed it was, so why would I need to demonstrate it? There may very well be other ones that work that we haven't thought of yet. So we start off with a Strawman. Good job, by the way.

What exactly do you use to gauge whether it represents the optimal and strategy in existence.

Again, did not say it was. Merely said that it worked, and implied that was more easily validated than the biblical method. So another Strawman.

You make accusations that I bend to God simply because he says I should but you are doing the exact same thing. You are bending to a methodology simply because it is the only one you know and, truth be told, could be based on faulty human thinking.

No. I am going with a methodology that has produced billions of tangible results.

BS, you did not respond to one thing that I actually said. You claimed that the methodology I used cannot be shown to work any better than your faith-based one. I provided many, many examples of how my methodolgy provides easily demonstrated benefits.  Not only did you not even acknowledge or argue against those examples, you formed a Strawman that claimed I said that the logical method was the only possible method that could ever exist.

Does the existence of things such as your computer, car, tv, etc. all of which were created by science and it's method show that the scientific process works or does it not? That was what you were to respond to, BS, as that was the issue under discussion.

Then, if they are examples of it working, can you provide equal amounts of evidence that your methodolgy works?

If not, then clearly I was right. One can validate the trustworthiness of my methodolgy far better than yours.

As I said, I make very good points. You just ignore them. As you did here.

Again, the larger portion of your posts are not making ‘points.’ They are ramblings filled with opinions and conjecture and rarely, if ever, supported by anything of substance or which constitutes a verifiable source.

So far you haven't shown this. You have yet to make an actual argument against anything I said. I mean aside from a fallacious one.

With regards to my visit to the ER which, for some strange reason you are glued to, my contentions to having been placed there are contained in the ER thread. Whether you disagree with them or not is irrelevant. Again, there is a difference in feeling about who was right and who was wrong and that’s that. I am not going to re-hash that entire episode with you all over again. If you find some comfort in continuing to beating it like a dead horse, then enjoy yourself !!

As I mentioned before, it was you who brought the ER up. You were the one who made the claim that it was unwarranted and without reason. I merely responded to the claim. If you didn't want to beat the dead horse, why did you pick up the stick?

Besides, in this instance it's relevant, since we are discussing your pattern of behaviour. You tried to portray the fact that you don't respond to some posts as simply negligence on your part. However your entire history on the forum shows that it isn't. Which is why the ER thread is being brought up, along with the old Evolution/Creationism thread that you ran away from last time.

Kindly provide proof that I have lied about anything.

I already did.

I have no problem whatsoever having a “conversation.” I welcome other people’s opinions and comments and observations….BUT…..you obviously do not understand the difference between a simple “conversation” and the more formal process of arguing something. You use both interchangeably when it suits you….providing conjecture and baseless claims at will all the while criticizing me for allegedly doing the same thing. You just don’t get it. You are as guilty of using a double standard as anyone I’ve encountered on this forum or anywhere else.

Feel free to prove this double standard at anytime. I'm still waiting.

I indicated that it “seems” to me as though you do. That word in that context has a certain meaning which qualifies my statement as lacking irrefutable proof. However, if you really want me to go back and list all of the vile insults and accusations you’ve made that led me to making this comment, I gladly will. Just let me know…..it’s a large list.

Allow me to clarify. I  meant please prove that this the focus of my efforts.

Of course I insult you. As I said, you're scum. I don't deny that fact and fully stand by every derogatory thing that I've ever said about you. Including the ones that I'm likely to say in the future. However such a thing doesn't mean I don't still make valid arguments against the bile you spew. It also doesn't rule out the possibility of having a legitimate pointed discussion. I still can, and do, respond t everything you saw with considered arguments. I simply insult you as a bonus and because it helps me deal with the nausea.

However I would like you to prove that I focus the majority of my efforts on this.

Scum like me, eh? That’s nice…and very helpful in discussing the topic.

Start actually discussing the topic then. Make an intelligent argument and I won't have to find my own amusement. Nothing you have said so far has actually made a point in regards to what I have said. I need to amuse myself somehow.

Seriously,BS, make a point. Say something intelligent, at least do something to separate yourself from a clothes-wearing monkey.

And even more insults and unprovable accusations. As I stated above, , kindly provide proof that I do not care about right or wrong or others suffering and that we enjoy the suffering of others. You are going to have to come up with a lot more than that Nazi story (that you have repeatedly dug up like an old rag) if you want to paint an accurate picture of me. This should be interesting because you do not even know me nor could you possibly be aware of the extent of care, sympathy, and assistance I give on a daily basis.

No, but I'm aware of the care and sympathy that you demonstrate here.

And I proved my lying, dodging, hiding accusations long ago. I proved them with that big post I made with all of those quotes from the ER and Evolution threads, remember.

You, not surpringly dodged, lied, and hid from them.

This is an utterly inaccurate statement as I have demonstrated above. The vast majority of your so-called ‘points’ are nothing more than opinions.

Not in the least. However please feel free to actually prove this. Whenever you feel like getting around to it.

[Hatter23]

I didn't think a T-16 had an open cockpit, does it?

It was a closed cockpit, but I thought that some of the windows could be opened at low altitudes.  Looks like I was wrong about that, though, according to Wookieepedia.

As I thought, it must have been the typical mounted repeating blaster on the model Luke used. Would have explained how easily he took to the targeting controls on the X-wing

[pianodwarf]

As I thought, tt must have been the typical mounted repeating blaster on the model Luke used. Would have explained how easily he took to the targeting controls on the X-wing.

Right, Biggs told him that flying the X-wing was quite similar to flying the T-16, at least as far as handling the controls went.

[velkyn]

Now, if I responded like that I would most certainly be accused of 'dodging.' So I call foul. The question wasn't even directed at you but since you chimed in, kindly provide a response that addresses the question.

Responded like what?  How I addressed your attempts to make atheists out to be nihilists.  Indeed what am I dodging here, BS.  I’m sure since you’ve accused me of it, you can show me exactly where I supposedly did what you claim.  Or are you lying again, BS? More false witnessing?

Lovely to see you making an excuse for something that hasn’t happened yet. Hilarious.  And oh darn, I responded to your nonsense.  Bad bad velkyn, pointing out where BS is again, full of BS with his attempts at the same old accusations.  You’ve tried this little whine before, BS and if you have problems with people chiming in at anytime, which is common practice on this forum and something that you already are familiar with, you an ask for a one on one debate with someone. 

I was not trying to "claim" anything as you falsely accuse me of doing. I am genuinely interested in trying to understand.

  Oh, BS, I’m just not as stupid as you’d hope but it is fun to watch you claim ignorance.  You’ve asked the following questions:

What is it that keeps you restrained from doing whatever the heck you might feel like doing?

and before this

You know, I sit here and wonder why any of what is being discussed matters anyway. In the non-theist belief system, this world is going to burn up someday and this all amounts to a bunch of nonsensical rantings and ravings. Seriously, what is the non-theist's motivation for challenging any belief system...whether it's Christian, Islam, Buudha, Wicca, etc etc?

Yep, the old Christian trying to claim that atheists have no morality since they have no god.  We have you trying to claim that gee since we don’t believe in god, that we only accept that this world “is going to burn up and all this (showing theists they’re wrong it seems) all amounts to a bunch of worthless effort as you claimed “a bunch of nonsensical rantings and ravings”.  You want to know what is the motivation for showing theists that they are wrong and were answered again and again.  Ignoring that, you then try again with the same question in a different form, the good ol’ attempt by a theist to declare that atheists should have no reason to act compassionately or humanely, again, attempting to appeal to the idea that since atheists do not accept a god or any magical afterlife, they must have no morality or need to do anything since it ultimately will be worthless. 

So, BS, your protestations are again false and just one Christian denying the obvious.  I don’t find you “genuinely” interested at all, not in the context of your posts.  If you are, I know you’ve been told this before.  I, as an atheist, don’t act like a ravening asshole because I am compassionate and empathic.  I do not need the stick and carrot of heaven and hell to be decent to my fellow humans as many Christians seem to need.  I do not have this delusion that humanity is “sinful” or “evil” at its root, that is only an excuse made by Christians who are trying to suck up to their imaginary friend. 
   

[jaimehlers]

Your logic is flawed. Alzael must assume the possibility of God's existence in order to opine on His character or His actions. No proof of God is necessary since the possibility has already been implicitly conceded to by Alzael. If what you contend were true, then everything that Alzael has said about God is completely irrelevant and utter nonsense. In other words, his only reply would have to be: "God does not exist, therefore, there is nothing to judge or comment on."

I do not have to assume the possibility of Ursula's existence (from Disney's The Little Mermaid) in order to comment on her character or actions, or Darth Vader's existence (from Star Wars), or Link's existence (from The Legend of Zelda), or any other fictional character for that matter.  Therefore, it is illogical to conclude that someone cannot comment on a being's character or actions unless they assume that there is a possibility of that being existing, because they can and do without ever assuming that such a being might truly exist.  Your statement that his only position can be "God does not exist, therefore, there is nothing to judge or comment on" is therefore both illogical and nonsensical.  A fictional character can exist in the realm of the imagination without ever existing in the real world, and a real person can comment on that fictional character without anyone assuming that the fictional character is in fact real.

To get back to the point, Alzael can comment on the things written in the Bible while assuming those things are fictional in nature.  It is true that he cannot, for example, physically demonstrate the existence of the tree of knowledge that the Bible, in Genesis 2:9, specifically states that God made grow out of the ground.  But he does not have to, because he is not assuming that that part of the Bible describes a real event.  If you want to prove that they are not fictional and therefore truthful, you must provide evidence for God's existence, and further, evidence to show that God actually did the various things attributed to him in the Bible.  You cannot sidestep that need to provide evidence by using sophistry to claim that Alzael already "admitted the possibility of God's existence".

[jynnan tonnix]

Let me be very clear here: He is under no obligation to save you.  He is under NO obligation to show you mercy.  He WILL, if you but ask him, but your demanding it of Him like a petulant child will get you nowhere.  I mean, how could you even think He has some sort of obligation to you?  Remember, we're assuming the whole biblical narrative is true.  How in the world do you get from "I've sinned against an infinitely holy Creator" to "He really ought to save me because I know better than He does about what's best."  Have you even read the Bible?  I mean, that's the whole point of Romans 9: You're a sinner.  You've sinned.  You don't get to demand things of God.  You just don't.  Have you really truly and honestly examined your own life, that you could honestly think a perfect and holy God is required to capitulate to your demands?  Seriously?  The arrogance of such a claim is stunning...

The thing is, here is that no matter how strongly either side feels about the argument, it's necessarily all hypothetical since there CAN be no absolute proof that god does or does not exist.

All we have to go on is words in the Bible (which is also not demonstrably a work of non-fiction), and our feelings based upon how we react to things in the physical world, and I think it would be impossible to argue that at least SOME of the things ascribed to god would strike us as barbaric were they to be done by a mere mortal, which necessitates a lot of doublethink and apologetics to make them palatable.

It necessitates having to think of ourselves as absolute scum, and of god being so infinitely more powerful than we to somehow choke down the notion that there is any sort of justice. It requires a deliberate disconnect between our logical minds and the dogma we are taught to parrot. It means forcing ourselves to devalue actually thinking for ourselves lest we come to the all but inevitable conclusion that if god exists, there are some serious problems with his methodology.

Instead, we must stare straight ahead and chant the mantra of "We are sinners and god's ways are beyond our understanding" to nip in the bud any inkling that the dogma simply doesn't add up. All those precautions were implanted precisely BECAUSE without them the least bit of introspection will have us finding the injustice in the system.

At that point, it all comes down to Occam's razor...Is it easier, does it make more sense and less twisting your mind into knots to take these hypotheticals and conclude that the Bible is true, or to look at the story without bias and conclude that it all sounds like a work of fiction?

[velkyn]

jynnan's post got me to thinking about a couple of other things.

Wasn't humanity to be this god's crowning moment?  Why all of the sudden, does God hate this thing he intentionally made to be as it is?  How can we be "sinners" when we only do what thsi god wants? Just about any reply I can think of makes this god less than what Christians claim it is and causes more contradictions. It also renders the definition of sin rather moot.  Of course, Christians can't quite make up their minds on just how much control this god has with claims of "plans" and such.

A question to MiC:  Would you accept being punished in a human court of law for the crimes of another?  Is this just?  If it not just here, how is it just when God does it?  It's a simple question.  As has been noted, per your bible, humans know the difference between right and wrong as much as this god supposedly does.  Is the bible wrong?  A common excuse for this is that we somehow know what is "right and wrong " but ignore it which begs the question, how do you prove that?

[BibleStudent]

Hence, the plan did not work. Maybe you use different definitions than I do, however I would consider a plan that wipes out all life on earth to eliminate evil people whcih fails to eliminate all of the evil people, seriously flawed.

“consider” = opinion. An opinion is not an acceptable form of evidence to prove a point. In order to validate your ‘point’  that God’s plan was flawed, you would have to know what would have occurred in the world had the evil not been destroyed. You are stating that the plan did not work but you cannot prove that.

I did prove it already. It's called a simple logical progression.

There were babies on Earth. > Babies are living things. >God drowned all living things except eight humans in a flood. > Ergo,god drowned the babies.

That is not adequate proof of anything. While I have little doubt that the youth drowned along with everyone else, you are still speculating and cannot provide the proof. Period.

But let's go beyond that. Humans are created by god. He decided on our nature, put us in the garden with the talking snake, etc. When we ate from the tree, it was god himself who placed the curse of original sin (you have read the bible right, BibleStudent?) upon us. He made a deliberate choice to place this upon us. Then he created the convoluted path to salvation through faith, in order to save us from the punishment that he himself inflicted on us.

So to make it simple (in deference to you).

God created us. God gave us our mental faculties. God placed us in the garden with the snake in front of the big tree he did not want us to eat from. God chose to inflict us with original sin. God created a place of punishment for those of us who have the infliction of sin. God created a plan to "save" us, from the punishment and infliction that we're both created by him (as opposed to you know, just outright forgiving the sin).

More speculation absent any proof. Prove to all of us that God placed/inflicted original sin on us as opposed to us placing it on ourselves.

No, it’s not a point at all. It is additional conjecture that presupposes God is somehow bound to adhere to a system of belief that you have created. Furthermore, it presupposes that God sees moments and events in history in the same manner you and I do. Can you demonstrate that God exists in a state that makes Him subject to your moral judicial system? Can you demonstrate that the outcome of any of His decisions, commands, or actions would have had a more favorable result if they had been carried out according to your infinite wisdom?

No, again it is not a conjecture. This isn't even a real response to what I said.

I said that by how humans define morality, god commits actions that could only be carried out by an absolute monster. However you excuse these actions because you "trust" in him that they are done for a good cause. However your trust is given only because he has told you that he is the good guy. A claim which has absolutely no reason to be believed.

I did not say that god was bound to adhere to any particular belif system. I did not say anything about how god sees things. I did not say that he was in anyway subject to human morals. Nor did I claim any infinite wisdom, or that his actions might not actually yield a greater good in the long run. Your entire rant is a pathetic Strawman that doesn't respond in anyway to what was said.[/quote

A blatant dodge. Please answer my question and provide what I requested.

In regards to right or wrong.

1)You have claimed that as god is our creator he has the right to do as he wants with his creations. At this point right or wrong become irrelevant.

Saving this for future reference. I am surprised you would even say such a thing.

2)You follow this god even though you possess no means of knowing whether he is good or evil. You follow simply because he has told you to and because he is powerful. The fact that you have no way of actually knowing his intentions does not matter to you. Again, this shows that you have no consideration for what is right or wrong. Or any moral considerations in general. If you did, it would be very important to whether you actually knew what your god was doing was right, as opposed to being told it.

3) To quote you. "That is, if God has what you deem to be sadistic character traits, who am I to question it? Is it necessary for me to like, approve, and cherish everything He does in order to bow down to Him?"

"I simply trust that the Creator of our very existence is capable and fully empowered to do with us as He desires in order to fulfill His plan….and, yes, like it or not, ultimately we have no say in the matter."

"Suffice it to say that while I do not understand all that God has done or is presently doing in this world, I accept my place in HIS creation and concede to His power and might. I am in no position to judge that which CREATED ME nor do I claim to know a better way to fulfill His plan."

You outright state here that you do not care if god is good or evil. You bow to god regardless of his actions.

In regards to suffering.

1)God creates suffering on a massive scale to millions of people. This is the closest to any consideration that you shown such a thing so far.

"I do not find anything pleasant about any of those....nor would I condone or encourage any person to embrace them as "right."
However you follow the god who does these things and more. You would commit these acts of suffering if you genuinely thought he was asking them of you, would you not? How can you claim to care about the suffering of others, when you fully support one who causes/ has caused untold levels of it.

2)As an omnipotent being, there is literally no reason for there to ever need to be suffering. Anything god wanted to do could easily be accomplished without it. So to cause suffering itself, must be a goal of your god. This is also something that you have no discernible problem with.

I could go on, but I've provided more than enough information to prove my point. You are, of course, free to rebut. Just try to actually make it intelligent.

No. You specifically said that I “simply don't care”….along with “You show no concern or caring for the suffering and agonies that others experience nor any consequences. Or what may happen to others. All you ever show concern for is the will of your god.”

You are making specific accusations about my character as a whole indicating that I am not capable of caring or showing concern for the agonies of others. Stop dodging and prove it. Prove that I am incapable of EVER caring and showing concern.

I said that by how humans define morality, god commits actions that could only be carried out by an absolute monster.

Now we’re getting somewhere. You admit that you are judging God according to human standards. Thank you.

Kindly provide proof that I have lied about anything.

I already did.

Another blatant dodge.

I indicated that it “seems” to me as though you do. That word in that context has a certain meaning which qualifies my statement as lacking irrefutable proof. However, if you really want me to go back and list all of the vile insults and accusations you’ve made that led me to making this comment, I gladly will. Just let me know…..it’s a large list.

Allow me to clarify. I  meant please prove that this the focus of my efforts.

Of course I insult you. As I said, you're scum. I don't deny that fact and fully stand by every derogatory thing that I've ever said about you. Including the ones that I'm likely to say in the future. However such a thing doesn't mean I don't still make valid arguments against the bile you spew. It also doesn't rule out the possibility of having a legitimate pointed discussion. I still can, and do, respond t everything you saw with considered arguments. I simply insult you as a bonus and because it helps me deal with the nausea.

However I would like you to prove that I focus the majority of my efforts on this.

Are you not reading what I am writing or just purposely ignoring it? I explained what I said….there is no proof. I used the word “seems.”

This is an utterly inaccurate statement as I have demonstrated above. The vast majority of your so-called ‘points’ are nothing more than opinions.

Not in the least. However please feel free to actually prove this. Whenever you feel like getting around to it.

I have. You have dodged my questions and failed to provide the proof that I requested. You continue to offer nothing but opinions and observations.